This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Portugal was never part of the spanish empire - again and again
People, you might like it or not, but Portugal and its colonies were never part of the spanish empire. When Philip II of Spain was acclaimed Philip I of Portugal (legally, so it was not an invasion [although some portuguese didn't want the new dynasty and fought]) one of the conditions was remaining Portugal separate, as a personal union. So when that happened Portugal was not absorved into Spain, Portugal and Spain remained two independent separate countrys, just with the same king and obviously politics. So, Spanish empire never had the portuguese possessions but the spanish king had both empires. That's the diference that people seem to confuse. When Philip IV of Spain and III of Portugal wanted to absorb Portugal into Spain there was a war for DYNASTIC INDEPENDENCE, not for separation of the two countries. Of course we might not neglect the pro-spanish thinking of the kings, they were spanish in origin, so we might say that Portugal was under spanish influence, but independent.
That map shows not the spanish empire but the possessions of the king of Spain AND Portugal. You can call it the Philippine empire, the Portuguese-Spanish empire, etc, but with the lands included it is NOT ONLY the spanish empire.--Câmara15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
The legend in the portuguese empire page is good. It shows the same map but it says: "An anachronous map showing the Portuguese possessions ruled by the Habsburg kings (1580-1640) jointly all Spanish colonies (1492-1975), shown together simultaneously and at their maximum extent."
Depends how you define this empire - see the "Definition". Also read the "Empire" article on the heterogenous nature of the organisation of empires. You are right about the Dynastic Independence - in a technical legalistic sense, yet in reality it was one empire, as it was effectively under one ruler - and Portugal was conquered and occupied by Spanish forces. For an analogy think about how the Warsaw pact was in reality part of the Soviet empire, inspite of the official independence of its member states. Of course it might be better to call it the Spanish-Portuguese-Aragonese- Bergundian empire - all a bit of a mouthful. As it was the "Spanish" part that was the dominant one its easiest to call it the Spanish, but in our nationalistic era this seems to cause misunderstandings. Maybe we should clarify these issues a little more in the Definition, so that people understand better the nature of this distinctly Renaissance era empire, with its diffuse authorities and its evolving nature. But lets not get lost too much in technicalities, we could go on and on Provocateur23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
There's a better comparison from the same period: Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. A seperate crown for Ireland was set up by legislation in 1541, which probably gives a weaker claim than that of Phillip II over Portugal. It's still a matter of debate whether Ireland was a kingdom or a colony, part of the British Empire or a territory to be exploited.--Shtove23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Who are you people? have you read any academic books on this period?
after reading the first few discussions i wondered to my self...... do any of you go to a university that teaches about the Spanish empire? i do go to a university that teaches exactly this which i have the benifit to be able to obtain relevant books on this topic at the library. Spain was truly a global empire, someone please pick up a book and read it first - preferably one by the leading academics in this field such as Henry Kamen, Hugh Thomas and of course Geoffrey Parker. i am pretty sure that Henry Kamen explains how large the spanish empire really was in his book 'Kamen, H, Empire: How Spain became a world power: 1492 - 1763' though i cant be bothered at the moment finding it but i will post it up here later when i have time. but i think i will add something very interesting to this discussion. according to the book "the Grand Strategy of Phillip II" by geoffrey Parker the very words "The world is not enough" comes from the Latin words of "non sufficit orbis" which was inscribed on a bronze medal (coin) in 1583 commemorating the creation of Phillips global empire. This is shown on page five and if anyone has the book you will see the medal has a picture of phillip on one side and a picture of the world with a horse on top of it on the other with the words "NON SUFFICIT ORBIS" situated around the world. Truly, spain was one of those empires that was enormous but i will try and get exact details on how big it is compared to the roman empire which i think is in another book i have.
I think you will find also that there were movements by the catholic orders to promote equal treatment of native Indians and laws were passed though its been a long time since i read about that so i can only be very vague about it as i also have to read up on it. unsigned comment by User:203.206.255.133 on 09:52, August 2, 2006
Western Sahara was awarded to Spain in 1884 at the Berlin Conference, so the sentence
"Spain lost all the colonial possessions in the first third of the century, except for Cuba, Puerto Rico and, isolated on the far side of the globe, the Philippines, Guam and nearby Pacific islands, as well as Spanish Sahara (mostly desert), parts of Morocco, and Spanish Guinea."
must be rewritten. Same applies to "parts of Morocco", which weren't Spanish until 1906 (Algeciras Conference), unless you consider that these "parts of Morocco" are Ceuta and Melilla, which is even more controversial.
I have made this small addition: , "enacting the most extraordinaty epic in human history, in the words of the prominent French historian Pierre Vilar", but user Merc has reverted it. What is wrong with that?.Veritas et Severitas03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I am ging to be very rigorous with my sources:
The flag reported as the flag of New Spain is not so. This flag is known as "Cruz de Borgoña" (Cross of Burgundy), and, according to Santiago Dotor, from Flags of the World, was the Spanish military flag from the 16th century up to 1843, when the colours of the 1785 War Ensign were adopted for use on land too. So it may have been used in New Spain as well as in any territory within the Spanish Empire as flag of the Army. Archael Tzaraath14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly correct (I added the image as "Flag of the Spanish Empire"). Feel free to change the caption to your liking. Albrecht14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Articles for Deletion
FYI, for anyone interested there are two AFD discussions going on at
The best of Spain undisputably dominated Amsterdam, Belgium, Rome, Sicily and the most noteworthy Peru empire and Aztec empire at the same timeline. It took at least 3 super powers and 2 centuries ago to stop them
The best of Britain and France are not close that good
The Best of Spain dominated Portugal,parts of France ,Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Italy , Holy Roman Empire , England & Ireland Crown consort , Incan/Aztec empires , and southern USA ,
it took England & France & Ottoman & Holland & revolts EVERYWHERE and 2 CENTURIES TO STOP THEM
madrid did win the best sport club of the 20th century so colonialism is not the worst thing to be proud of. For example U.K should give Gilbratar back to Spain, that is the worst hing to be proud of
And Olivença? Spain promised and signed that Olivença would return to Portugal. Until now, nothing. Colonialism may be something to be proud of if we recognize that are some unacceptable colonialisms (slavery, etc). It's a complicated subject, I think.Câmara18:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Gibraltar is a part of the UK's Empire, but come on, that happened 300 years ago, Gibraltar in Spanish
Gibraltar belongs to the Gibraltarians, who have no desire to be Spanish. It was liberated three hundred years ago. --Gibnews22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
That reminds me some land called... Olivença... Anyway this discussion is useless and must be stopped now.Câmara22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Woe to those whose ego and national pride depend on their countries' fallen empires, for their unwarranted self importance will make them collide with each other... (And for some reason this seems rather typical of both Spaniards and Brittons, while denizens of other countries avoid revelling in the shameful fact of European colonialism of the world, for the most part)
One wonders what's the gain of these. It's not like they'll get a governorship of Peru or India for their armchair patriotism, right?
--217.127.191.232 (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Territorial height
Wasn't the empire at its territorial height between 1580 and 1640, when it had control of Portugal and its empire? During that period it ruled basically the same areas it did in 1790, except for the central and most of the western US, which area was surpassed by that of Brazil and other Portuguese territories, probably. SamEV23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Since it is commonly stated that the Empires of the Modern Age include the possesions of the Sovereigns of those Empires and not the territories effectively administered by the metropolis, it is not wrong to say that Portugal was a possesion of the King of Spain, and therefore a part of the Empire of the King of Spain. In other words, Portugal, Brazil and all the territories of the Portuguese Empire were, for 60 years, part of the Spanish Empire.
Maybe you are right but then it is not even wrong to say the Spanish Empire was part of the Portuguese Empire for 60 years either since King Felipe II (I for Portugal) was the son of a Portuguese princess and he ruled which much love the country of his mother. What historians sometimes denied is that both countries fought side by side in several battles to protect both colonies Spanish and Portuguese against the Dutch, English and the French. (Filipe)
Camara, you're in denial...
The Spanish king took over Portugal. And Spain DID have control over it, in fact Portugal's rebellion was due to the heavy taxation brought upon it by Philip III of Spain. It wasn't a union, such as that between Aragon and Castile. There was no Portuguese monarch, just the Spanish king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure. A Raised-in-Portugal-Grandchild-of-the-King-of-Portugal-and-favored-by-the-Portuguese-nobility Spanish King. Oh, and his father was German. ;p
--217.127.191.232 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Piracy attack
Sorry for my horrible english, but part of "God is Spanish" say that the piracy was dangerus for the Emperie economi. I have was study that information and I haven't found any author who say that (spanish and no spanish). Some pirates, like Drake, sometimes could get a few important ships; but that was a exception no the rule. That idea is more from Hollywood movies that History investigations.
w:es:Usuario:Zósimo
I'm agree. I'm spaniard, and doctors told me the same at the university. Piracy could'nt take anything because the Armada was always with the galeones during the trip from Hispanoamérica to España. Doctors told me also that most of piratas come from G.Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.118.208 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I rather suspect that there might have been a few Dutch ships more than inclined to opportunisticly join in too, (at least untill that was covered in one of the peace deals between the Dutch and the Spanish. And anyway, I rather thought Drake and co. were carrying state issued paperwork, therefore they weren't pirates (perhaps "commerce raiders" would be a more appropriate modern termMariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
First global empire
Both the page for the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire say they were the first global empire. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.245.188 (talk • contribs)
Well spotted. The Spanish Empire only went "global" (instead of a Europen-American affair) with the settlement of the Philippines, in 1565, by which time Portugal had established posts in Brazil, Africa, India and East Asia. So Portugal was "first". Gsd200000:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
With the birth of the first child of a colonist. I dunno. What the intro says now is "one of the first global empires" - what's needed is an academic statement that the Spanish (or Portuguese) empire was the first global empire.--Shtove20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Spain was the first global empire since it was the first in human history to control territories in all 5 continents. Portugal was never such an empire since it never had any colonial possesions in Europe. I think it is not wrong to say that Portugal was the first global "state" or political organization, but Spain was the first global colonial empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.237.122 (talk • contribs)
So, my friend the Ogre, are you saying that portugal was a portuguese colony?? Please read the comments carefully before replying nonsense. Spain had colonies in italy, belgium, the netherlands, and other european territories. Portugal did not. Portugal was never a colonial power in europe. Therefore Portugal was never a global colonial power. Spain was. Spain had colonies in every continent. It was the first country to do so, followed by britain and france.
We can say loads of things. For instance, that an empire is no good without an head; that the head was in Europe; that if someone has a head in Mars, he is either at least in part Martian or headless. It is also possible to ask which was the extent of the cultural imprint left by Spain in Italy (!), Belgium and the Netherlands. Xyzt123421:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I think I don't understand your point. By the way, who's talking about cultural imprint? I'm talking about political domination. But anyway, if you want to see the cultural imprint of Spain in Italy go and admire Naples and its cultural sites dating from the Spanish colonial period. Regards.
Allright but did the spanish forget the 60% of all the spanish territories in Europe were lent by marriage with the habsburg family and they were protected by Portuguese soldiers. historical facts and archives in Antwerp Belgium proofs those facts, as well in Reggio Calabria in Italy.
Regards from a Portuguese that lived in Antwerpen and Calabria in Italy !!!!
===Semiprotection request===
Hi The Ogre, I noticed you are keeping reverting anons on this page, I just wonder if you would agree if I asked for a semiprotection request here. --Andersmusician$23:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello Andersmusician! Thank you for your atention! And you are right, a Semiprotection, impeaching non-registered users of editing the article would be a good idea. The anonimous user in question defends a POV position that the Spanish Empire was, without discussion, the first global empire, wich is contradicted by the previous existence of the Portuguese Empire. Trying not to fall into petty competition, the text now states the the Spanish Empire was "one of the first global empires." I believe this is a good way to put it and it should remain so. Could you, please, ask for the semiprotection? Gracias, hombre! Hasta siempre! The Ogre16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I really think this is a stupid debate only interesting for portuguese and spanish national-"chauvinistes". Portugal and Spain (Castile) compited in 15 and 16 centuries, and now some portuguese and some spaniards seem to be very concerned about it. But who was the first? Who knows? Was the Guinness World Records there? Say (here and in the Portuguese Empire) that Spain and Portugal compited to be the first and it will be true. What you say, The Ogre and the others, is not more than an oppinion, not the truth. Saludos. --Ignacio22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
My friend... please do not insult others. I am not a nationalist chauvinist. In fact I am quite opposed to such bias! I am even a member of both WikiProject Spain and WikiProject Portugal! That is way I believe that the wording "one of the first global empires." is a good way to put it. And I am not saying that the Portuguese Empire was the first global one! I am also not saying that the Spanish was the first global one! What I am saying is that one can not state such blumt affirmations without discussion, exactly because the two empires were quite contemporary and, as you say said, compited with each other! What I am trying to do to is stop an anon user who is clearly a nationalist chauvinist, who tries to state blumtly that Spain had the first global empire, without discussion! Do you understand what I am trying to say? I hope so. Thank you. The Ogre13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
And, Ignaciogavira, calling "names" and of being desrespectufull of the truth to other good-faith editors is not good policy (it's very close to personal attack), namely when they were the ones to welcome you in wikipedia... The Ogre13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Dear friend, I apologize if I my words look like unrespectful for you. I did not said that you were national-chauvinist. I said that discussion was only interesting for those people. Of course I understand what you say and I agree. Anyway I was very surprised when after reading this discussion here I read this on Portuguese Empire article: "The Portuguese Empire was the first global empire in history. It was the earliest and longest lived of the European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999", and I have not see changes on that article. Peço-te desculpas pelo malentendido. Um abraço. --Ignacio15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
yeah bud just because its on another wikipedia article doesnt mean its right. Which it isnt. Spain was the worlds first truly GLOBAL empire. Portugal was establishing colonies before spain but not across the pond. Im sure you've heard of Christopher Colombus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
We heard about Christopher Columbus wich serve Portugal before Spain. You heard about Bartolomeu Dias, Nicolau Coelho etc., Vasco da Gama and Pedro Álvares Cabral joining Americas to Asia and to Africa and Europe - and Far East to Europe?
The first Global Empire was Portugal.
In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4(or 5) Continents and the first one spread by some more Subcontinents - and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5(or 6) Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate - and proclaiming nominal domain on west Papua (New Guinea) in 1526.
Let us respect the Truth and history.
Of course Spain and Portugal joined in 1580 to 1640 had formed wider a double truly global empire.
In other way You could write that the Spanish empire with the Portuguese, was one of the first global empires. Became better historical justice.
Portugal was the first.
In your way, you could say that it was the British, more late, but with the eventually first oficial claims and some missions-establishments in Antártica?!
Map
A user is unilaterally changing the Spanish empire map with another. That map has been there long as a result of consensus. In any case, this user seems to ignore that for a long time (1580-1640) Portugal and its empire were also under Spanish rule and the Portuguese broke away in 1640 with a fight. The deleted map is more complete and this one now also ignores other areas controlled or claimed by Spain. I leave you with this guy though, who seems to make changes on his own and personal point of view. I will respond no more. Tired of this type of users. Good luck. 65.11.114.8402:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ogre and Camara , im tired of seeing this historical revisionism and i would like to add some of my life's work to you biased knowledge
The Spanish Empire was a multi-global enterprise and in EUROPE (European Spanish Empire) was created mostly by DYNASTIC UNIONS and not conquer , the branch of the Austrians and Spanish Hasburgs were separated after the abdication of HRE Charles V or Charles I of Spain , this basically means WHATEVER land was given to Phillip II of Spain ; the italians (not all) , dutch , belgium , luxemburguese , german and french lands (Burgundy) among many others WERE SPANISH , like it or not , that is undoubtable .
So when Portugal was acquired after the death of the young Portuguese King in North Africa , Phillip gained control of Porugal and the Portuguese Empire , which at the same time made Castille/Aragon the first global superpower and ALSO halted portuguese expansion and power
Portugal became just like Naples , another dominions of the spanish KINGS...
While Phillip agreed not to ANNEX Portugal to Castille/Aragon and respect its laws, this was mostly to satisfy the portuguese nobility who SAW Phillip as a FOREIGN PRINCE and it even took Phillip an invasion of Portugal to get the throne, the invasion however was supported by a POLARIZED "pueblo"
So we can say Portugal became part of "Spain" but not a annexed kingdom , unlike the spanish lands in europe , i say Portugal and Spain union were "SUI GENERIS"-EuroHistoryTeacher
Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonymous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a map depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowns of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Habsburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different, since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre15:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the period of their personal union (1581-1640) Red/Pink - Spanish Empire Blue/Light Blue - Portuguese Empire
Map again...
Hello Onofre Bouvila! I am sorry to say but the present map, the one you've just added is completly POV! The Spanish Empire never included the Portuguese Empire! They were two different empires ruled by the same dinasty - the Habsburgs! And there is already a map showing the extent of both empires at the exact time of the Iberian Union. This map is wrong because it implies that the Portuguese Empire was Spanish, and because it mingles an anachronous view of the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese possessions between 1580-1640. I really am not disussing the details regarding the exact borders of the Spanish territories, but a map of this sort, and first of all the firts one to appear in the article, should not emply the communality of Spanish and Portuguese possessions. I'm not reverting you just now, but this needs to be discussed and changed. The Ogre18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Therefore I am placing a tag on the article (The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed.) since in several places it implies the Spanish possession of the Portuguese Empire! The Ogre18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Portugal was under Spanish rule for 60 years. The Portuguese only got independence through a rebellion. Anything else is sophistry, and I am tired of sophistry here. Just learn some basic history. Many areas of Spain have always retain a lot of independence in many respects, still they were and are part of Spain. Not all situations in the dominions under Spanish rule were the same: The Americas, Holland etc, possessions of Italy, Portugal, etc. The Spanish empire was huge and therefore complicated, but to say that Portugal was not under Spanish rule for 60 years and that they did not achieve independence through a rebellion against Spain is simply so ignorant of History, so full of manipulation and twisted lies that I will not comment anymore. As to the areas it is explained in the map. Some were colonized, others claimed. This discussion was already held long ago. According to this type of sophistry the Canadians should redefine their map, because in fact most of the country has virtually never seen a human being. But I am not going to go over discussions that were held time ago. Good luck here with the types of contributors that we all can see. Bye. 65.11.114.2819:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This discussion, again... In 1580, because of the vacant Portuguese throne, and fearing that Philip II of Spain would inherit the Portuguese throne, Anthony declared himself king of Portugal. Populars supported him, but the Council of Governors of Portugal (who ruled the country after Henry I's death) had almost all supported Philip II's claim, and were scared of the support Anthony I had. So, feeling their own lives at risk, they went to Spain (I think Ayamonte) and declared Philip II of Spain as the legal successor of Henry. So, Philip (luso-spanish, remember also) with the support of the Portuguese nobles entered in Portugal in a de jure civil war against Anthony I, not Spanish invasion. He won. In 1581 he was declared king Philip I of Portugal, and swore to guarantee the Portuguese independence, and to assure the colonies to be ruled by Portugal. So, the two countries (anyway it is wrong to say Spain, it was not one country) entered in a personal union, both independent and both empires were ruled separately, so it is also wrong to say it was a super-fused-global-empire, because existed two, not one. Philip I lived the next years in Portugal and had support of the population, because Philip I shown to be a good personal union ruler. Philip II/I then tried to take the english throne, and his armies/armadas (Spanish, Portuguese, etc) were sent. Note that the Anglo-Portuguese alliance was not broken, Elizabeth I always thought Portugal soon or later would rebel against Philip. She even tried to force revolutions, but she failed. The people began to complain about an absent king, and Philip created vice-kings for Portugal to fill that void (not to rule a dependent possession), but it was only a question of time until Portugal explode because of Castilian centralization ideologies of the ministers of Philip III/II and IV/III. The Portuguese flag did not change, to reflect Portuguese independence, although obviously the royal banner now included the Portuguese shield. Portuguese ships could also use Portuguese or Spanish flags. At this time the Dutch-Portuguese overseas war began, and only ended way after the personal union ended. Philip IV/III tried to unite the countries, but Portugal rebelled, and chose John IV to be king, not to become independent. At that time that was known as acclamation, but Portuguese romantic ideology of the XIX century called it restoration of independence. So, Portugal was independent, that's a fact, not a point of view. Portugal was under Spanish influence? Of course, Spanish nobles were more than Portuguese ones and were closer to the king. But the kings were also Portuguese (by Philip's II/I mother). If you're trying to say Portugal was part of Spain, was England part of Scotland when James began their personal union?Câmara21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Castilian-Lusitanian disputes aside, I have to say I rather like the new map, which isn't as overzealous territorially. Ideally, I would support a complete revamp along the lines of Image:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, which chronicles expansion with admirable precision, besides looking much more aesthetic and professional (making maps in Paint is like entering a pistol duel armed with a toothpick). We could strike a compromise and collaborate on improving the present map considerably in one blow. If others are interested, I can submit the idea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain. Albrecht23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
This is my last word here. Tired of Portuguese nationalistic fantasies. I have already seen in other places some Dutch claim that Holland was not under Spanish rule, going around the issue with the same type of fantasies. But this is Wiki, a heap of garbage. Definitely goodbye. 65.10.51.25119:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to add a word here - Empire - read that article very carefully, especially the first two paragraphs and also the section on the heterogenous organization of empires. If there is any justification for calling the Spanish Empire "Spanish" it is because what was crucial to holding this whole empire together were Spanish forces, though the contributions of others within the empire were, nevertheles, important. When said Spanish forces failed Portugal broke away. I think part of the cause of disputes here is the confusing of the Spanish Empire with the Spanish colonial empire that was administered from Seville. It is true that the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires were kept legally and administratively seperate. Provocateur04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Mr. 65.10.51.251, where did you saw that the Portuguese empire was part of the Spanish empire? And the presence of Spanish soldiers in Portugal don't matter to this case: is Iraq part of the USA today? Or was Portugal part of the Napoleonic empire? No. The Philips were the recognized kings of Portugal, and they could use the troops they wanted, even if foreign, as they were more loyal to them. So, the country was not occupied by another country, but defended by the troops the king wanted. That's the difference. Was Portugal administrated by Spanish ministers in the late period? Yes. What's the problem with that? It was unpopular - future proved that - but if the king wanted he could used Aztec ministers and it was the same: he had the power to do that, if he wanted to. A portuguese minister would defend some portuguese interests against the crown's interests. But as the king's interests were the same or almost the same as the castilian interests, he used castilian ministers. So Portugal and its empire was independent but influenced by spanish/castilian interests (the interests of the king of Portugal too!!! Note that the Philips could destroy the country (Portugal), because they ruled legally and have The Power), and that's not the same as being part of Spain/Spanish Empire. The Iberian Union was like a very very close alliance. In the cortes of Tomar of 1581, where Philip becomes Philip I of Portugal, he says Portugal would remain a separate country, so it was a personal union. What's the problem with this personal union? Scotland & England also had one, and anybody is saying England was part of Scotland? No. Why? Because it was a personal union, not a state union! Portuguese nationalistic fantasies? LOLOL I would say this is a pro-spanish nationalistic fantasy!! I really can't believe someone is raising this argument! Show me an official document that shows that Portugal, with its empire or not, become part of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Leon (this is another discussion, as AFAIK "Spain" didn't exist either until much later)! There is no Union Act of Portugal and another spanish kingdom. That was surely the objective of the Habsburg crown, but that didn't happen because Portugal broke the personal union. Remember that Philip III/IV was the legal king of Portugal, so the only chances of Portugal to end that union was to chose an "illegal" king, in this case John IV (anyway he had some legal base because some Philip I's promises were not done by his son and grandson). So Portugal struggled to acclaim John IV. Of course Philip III/IV didn't wanted that, and used his resources (spanish troops) to take the portuguese throne back, starting the Portuguese Restoration War.Câmara20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Pertinent discussions retrieved from other talk pages
User The Oger, a Portuguese, goes around deleting the Spanish Empire map that obviously includes Portugal and its empire because, as anyone knows versed in history, Portugal and its empire were part of the Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640, when the Portuguese broke away with a fight. I am growing tired of lies and manipulation by some users for nationalistic or other issues or just plain ignorance. 65.11.70.23414:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the period of their personal union (1581-1640) Red/Pink - Spanish Empire Blue/Light Blue - Portuguese Empire
I think this discussion should go to the description page of the Spanish Empire map in Wikimedia Commons. It is pointless to create new maps and modify them from the Englsh Wikipedia. All this stuff is done in commons, the consensus is obtained there, and then everyone from all the wikipedias export the maps from commons, to here. Apart from this, I don't think you have much knowledge about all this stuff. For example, I've read in the "edit summary", comments from Ramírez saying that the Western coast of the USA was never colonized. Hmmmm? And then what about the colonies and missions spread all over Oregon and California??? Anyway discuss this in commons, better. Because otherwise we will have one thousand different maps for the Spanish Empire. Onofre Bouvila17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello Onofre Bouvila! I am sorry to say but the present map, the one you've just added to Spanish Empire is completly POV! The Spanish Empire never included the Portuguese Empire! They were two different empires ruled by the same dinasty - the Habsburgs! And there is already another map showing the extent of both empires at the exact time of the Iberian Union. This map (Image:Spanish Empire.png) is wrong because it implies that the Portuguese Empire was Spanish, and because it mingles an anachronous view of the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese possessions between 1580-1640. I really am not disussing the details regarding the exact borders of the Spanish territories, but a map of this sort, and first of all the firts one to appear in the article, should not emply the communality of Spanish and Portuguese possessions. I'm not reverting you just now, but this needs to be discussed and changed. The Ogre18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an expert in this issue, but if you see the historical map that has been used in the wikipedia for these issues (the anachronous one), in its page of wikimedia commons, there is an extense "Summary" section that explains every frontier and every border. I am not saying that is right, but at least, it is justified. If one wants to change the map of the hispanophone, just go there and discuss it there, and give your own sources, and write in the talk page of the map, and write to the original makers of the map to improve it, but do not create new maps, and less from the English wikipedia, because then we have a thousand maps and when a random user wants to pick up a map to illustrate his article, does not know which one to take. So we have lots of maps now, but there is one, that has been always used, and that has an extense summary section that explains all the sources taken to make the map. So let's try to change that one, but don't take the direct way, and to impose your point of view (being right or not), create new maps, because that just increases the confusion around the issue. In addition, if you wanna create new maps, for each map, at least, make a section to explain the sources; creating a new map to illustrate your point of view and not providing verifiable sources in its commons page, is pointless. If you don't wanna lose the time getting the sources, don't create a map please. Anyway, as I said, I would not create any map, but modify the one that we already have, and that has enough sources. Discuss from that basis, trying to modify the existing one. Onofre Bouvila21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
You can talk all you want to this user called The Oger. He will not listen. Just follow his history. He goes around Wiki deleting the consensus map from Wiki everywhere. 65.10.51.25120:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Portugal and its empire was part of the Spanish empire from 1580 to 1640. But it seems that some users want to hide another fact too badly. I do not care. I am more and more convinced that Wiki stinks with so many people lying and manipulating. 65.11.70.23413:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the period of their personal union (1581-1640) Red/Pink - Spanish Empire Blue/Light Blue - Portuguese Empire
Wich map, the one on the right or the one in the article Spanish Empire (an anachronous map)? And the question is more starting an article with a map that imediatly represents the Spanish Empire as including the Portuguese one (Notice that the Portuguese Empire page does not do the same), or having a map that presents only the Spanish Empire and further down in the article having this map here, a non-anachronous map, that represents both empires in the period of the personal union of the crowns, called the Iberian Union? The Ogre12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Portugal was under Spanish rule for 60 years and in Modern History, if that is not a historical link related to the Spanish state(and therefore to its people) I do not know what a historical link is (apart from many others)During this period most Portuguese writers wrote in Spanish and Portuguese, etc, in the same way as in the middle ages most Spanish poets wrote in Calician-Portuguese, etc. The Portuguese only got independenc from Spain through a rebellion. Anything else is sophistry, and I am tired of sophistry here. Just learn some basic history. Many areas of Spain have always retain a lot of independence in many respects, still they were and are part of Spain. Not all situations in the dominions under Spanish rule were the same: The Americas, Holland etc, possessions of Italy, Portugal, etc, more recently Morrocco, etc and on and on: All different situations. The Spanish empire was huge and therefore complicated, but to say that Portugal was not under Spanish rule for 60 years and that they did not achieve independence through a rebellion against Spain is simply so ignorant of History, so full of manipulation and twisted lies that I will not comment anymore. As to the areas it is explained in the map. Some were colonized, others claimed. This discussion was already held long ago in the Spanish Empire map. According to this type of sophistry the Canadians should redefine their map, because in fact most of the country has virtually never seen a human being, etc. But I am not going to go over discussions that were held time ago. Good luck here with the types of contributors that we all can see. Bye. 65.11.114.2819:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Hello¡¡ I m totally agree
Hello Ramirez72! Yes, the new map (Spanish Empire-World Map.png) is good. Good job! But why do you add new maps, instead of uploading a new version of the existing ones? You see, by adding new maps you are multiplicating the number of maps on the same subject, wich is a bit confusing... Just check the list of maps available on the Spanish Empire!
Bad Anachronous map of the Spanish Empire plus the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640
Bad Anachronous map of the Spanish Empire plus the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640
A good map of the Portuguese and Spanish Empires during 1580-1640 - should replace all others regarding the Iberian Union period
By the way, you should check all the pages that have some of these maps and correct the links, I'll try to do the same. Thank you! The Ogre16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
The Spaniards explored the western coast of North America. They arrived to Alaska, and they founded missions and forts all over California and Oregon. So stop you both changing the map for your own. These maps are changed from Wikimedia Commons, and there is already a map that was made long time ago, it is sourced, and it explains the different territories that Spain had along about 400 years.
So that's the good one, and it has been discussed by the Wikimedia community. Creating new maps for your own purposes is pointless. In addition, trying to remove the portuguese possessions from the map, Ogre, is just nationalistic bias. They belonged to the Empire for a period of 60 years, and it is explained in the legend, and they are displayed in a different colour. So I don't really understand why do you keep trying to remove them. Onofre Bouvila17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
A point which I think The Ogre understands, and some of his opponents do not understand, is the difference between union of two countries, and personal (or dynastic) union. Between 1580 and 1640, Portugal and Spain were in personal union - they had the same King. A comparable situation was that of Great Britain and Hannover, from 1714 to 1837. In 1714 King George of Hannover succeeded to the throne of Britain, and he and his heirs ruled both countries until 1837, when the Salic law in force in Hannover but not in Britain caused the thrones to go separate ways. In 1776 a later King George used troops from his kingdom of Hannover to fight to protect to preserve the rule of his other kingdom of Britain over its North American colonies. But no-one would ever say that Hannover was "British". Maproom21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually all the European posesions of the Spanish Habsburgs were under a personal union: the Lower Countries, Aragon, Cataluña, Napoles, etc. Each of this kingdoms (as they were called) had its own law and rights, and they only answered to the king, not to Spain. Furthermore, the notion of Spain as a united nation can only be used from the 18th-century on. --Victor1222:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
New INFOBOX
Hi, Ive just spend a hard time adding an infobox to the article, also adding some other pics, please tell me if it's ok or not. --Andersmusician03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Spanish's capital city in that period was Toledo and in this page it reads that it was Seville.
Well it's a long period so maybe first toledo and then seville, so if you bring us dates we can edit capitals designment --Andersmusician$05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
No Portuguese territories? They were part of Spain. What's with all the revisionism here? It's against the site's policy. If Portugal wasn't part of the empire, then there can be none...you see Spain was construed by many former independent entities. Portugal was in the same status as the rest. In fact Portugal seperated half a century later because of the taxes imposed by the Spanish king. Spain had complete control over it. I changed the map to the only correct one of the above. It is a good map, and is even precise enough to include the Spanish occupation of northern Taiwan (which lasted 17 years), which not many know about. Mainstream history dictates that Portugal was indeed annexed by Spain, which is what Wikipedia should keep to, not revisionism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Capital: Seville?
Common!
somebody (the nationalistic anon(which is not bad to be so)) added the king phillip II's coat on the infobox, but I don't know whether we should use that one or the old one. Then Ignaciogavira (talk·contribs)added the Charles I's coat --Andersmusician$21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Any of those coats are correct in one or another period of the spanish empire. I have added finally the only coat common to all the period, as resumed coat of arms of the spanish monarchs, representing the Crown of Castile. The first one belongs to the San Francisco Presidio National Park, in the USA, but it is not representative of a spanish coat of arms.
In my opinion this stuff [1] is an instance of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FLAGCRUFT, not to mention misleading. The Spanish Empire was not "succeeded by" the Netherlands or Puerto Rico, it withered away until it was put out of its misery by the USA in 1898. If anything, as the ruler of a set of colonies once held by Spain, one could argue that the USA "succeeded" it. Details like these should be left to the text of the article, where there is no ambiguity. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, let's take the Spanish colonies of Jamaica and Puerto Rico. The former was taken by the British in 1655 and the latter by the Americans in 1898. In what sense did the British colony of Jamaica "succeed" the Spanish Empire, when the Empire continued to exist for another 343 years? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Infobox
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). In order to avoid any confusion that might linger it might be worth while to point out that the project also applies to former empires with their various subdivisions and colonies.
The project exists to improve the articles within its scope, and one of the ways is this is managed is to introduce common structures in the articles in order to make the content more readily accessible to the reader. An important part of this common structure is the infobox, which collates certain features and facts for an easy review but this does not replace the need for an in-depth explanation in the text of the article.
Issues related to the article should be raised here on the talk page, but issues related to the WikiProject should be raised on the talk page of the project. Removing information and material such as the infobox that is supported by the project from the article is not very considerate, not to mention counter productive to establishing a common structure for similar articles, in this case former empires.
I'm not sure what being "considerate" has to do with things - if it's not appropriate it shouldn't stay. European empires were not former countries, and that infobox is just going to start edit wars about what the definition of "preceded/succeeded by" is, what the entities were that preceded and succeeded the empire (if any), what currencies were in use, and on placing an exact date on the start and end of the empire. And so on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Portugal was annexed by Spain.
Ok, this is from Encyclopedia Britannica...it doesn't get any more official or mainstream as this. And I quote: "During the short reign of Sebastian's old uncle, King Henry (1578–80), Philip carefully prepared his ground in Portugal by intrigue and bribery. Nevertheless, when Henry died, the opposition to Castile was still so strong in Portugal and the attitude of France and England so threatening that it was necessary for Philip to send Alba with an army to conquer Portugal in 1580." The privileges enjoyed by the Portuguese were no different than those applied to the Catalans. It was the exact same case. Spain still had total control over the territory. In fact heavy taxation on the Portuguese is what caused the seperation in 1640! The arguments used by Portuguese revisionists here is totally contradictory and should be put to an end, along with their vandalization of the article.
Therefore Portuguese territories SHOULD be included in the anachronous map, theone in use is misleading and historically incorrect. I suggest this article be disabled for editing by unkown users.
Anon Editor Changing Map
Anon editor is reverting to the (misleading) map showing Portuguese and Spanish colonial possessions. To quote Henry Kamen, "Empire: How Spain Became a World Power, 1492-1763" [2]: "After the union of the crowns of Portugal and Spain in 1580...Spain found itself in the difficult position of having to respect Portuguese primacy in major areas of commercial enterprise. Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm. The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. There is no doubt that the King did his best to maintain the autonomy of Portugal. In practice, however, the interests of Spain and Portugal became closely intertwined, thanks in good measure to the Portuguese financiers who entered the service of the Spanish crown." Just to repeat: Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm. The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That is how it was for all territories under control of the Spanish Habsburgs. Spain had control over taxation, and I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica stating Spain conquered Portugal above. Just as good as your source, if not more so.
I may not be a moderator like you, but hopefully there is someone here with equal power that can sort this out and keep your biased view out of the article.
I've provided a reputable source the union was one of crowns, not of states. Your Britannica quote actually does not contradict this because it states that Philip conquered Portugal - not Spain. It also does not explain what is meant by "conquered": it's your business how you interpret this word in the context of the Iberian Union, but if this is the only reference you can provide to back up your claim, you are clearly not very well read, and are engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Your source says union of states.....
Are you even reading your own quotes? Talk about not being well read...
Maybe your effort in belittling me could be put to better use.
And Philip was the king of Spain, therefore Spain conquered Portugal. This isn't original research or whatever you would like to dress this as. I was taught this in World History, no research needed. And I use this source because it encompasses neutrality. It doesn't get any more non-POV than Encyclopedia Britannica.
Also:
con·quer (kŏng'kər) Pronunciation Key
v. con·quered, con·quer·ing, con·quers
v. tr.
To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms.
To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms: scientists battling to conquer disease; a singer who conquered the operatic world.
To overcome or surmount by physical, mental, or moral force: I finally conquered my fear of heights. See Synonyms at defeat.
I would like to add another source that backs me up:
There was never any question of the institutional incorporation of Portugal into the Castilian system of government. The union of crowns was carried out strictly on the basis of the system that prevailed in the Spanish Habsburg empire, the Aragonese federative system of separate principalities. Felipe II swore not to interfere in the laws, customs, or system of government of Portugal and not to appoint Spaniards to Portuguese offices. This pledge was largely respected during the reigns of Felipe II and Felipe III, and even afterward under Felipe IV, so that the kingdom and its overseas [244] empire remained completely separate and essentially autonomous under the Hispanic crown. - Stanley G. Payne (reknowned Iberian historian FYI).
According to this Portugal was under the same autonomy as the other states. So if you insist on this I'm afraid the Spanish Empire simply never existed then, eh? Also, note how he says ...essentially autonomous under the Hispanic crown. This means Portugal was not an equal, it was subject to Spain. You see, autonomy doesn't exactly equal independence, as shown by the heavy taxation that in the end led to Portugal's seperation.
One person disagreed with Mr. Kamen! Oh my god, we'd better throw away all his books immediately! Please be more mature about this. Besides, the criticisms of the review weren't even about what we are talking about here. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. As for the rest of your sources, you can find any old crap on the web because anyone can post any old crap without any form of peer review. The fact that you can't provide any published book to back up your claim shows how weak it is.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, as User:68.179.176.9 said, Portugal was not a special autonomous region under Philip II. His domains were made up of several kingdoms which were separate from each other. They were only united by their allegiance to the same king as there was no "Spain" at that time. Thus, we have two choices here:
If we exclude Portugal from the "Spanish Empire" it would also be necessary to exclude all other domains which were not ruled by Castilla such as those of the Crown of Aragon.
On the other hand, if we include the Crown of Aragon and other kingdoms under "Spanish Empire", Portuguese domains must also be included, as they had the same autonomy as those of Aragon.
IMHO, this second choice seems more appropriate as it includes all territories under the personal rule of Philip II. --Victor1204:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Original research? Why? It's in your Kamen quote The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. Philip's empire was a personal union with different independent states: Castilla, Aragón, Portugal, Naples and Sicily, etc. So if you want to include Portugal from the empire you might as well exclude the others. --Victor1213:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That is NOT original research! Please tell me this isn't the only moderator here! This site is a wiki, and here we are having someone's beliefs imposed on us because he's a moderator, despite having 2 much more reliable, non-POV neutral sources that CLEARLY back up what we are saying. Original research? If you read the article on Kamen, he is criticised by a wide array of reputable historians, including the royal academy of history in Spain. We can't have a guy widely being accused of rubbishing the history of Spain as a source on the Spanish Empire. Please Red, do what is right. I also find it very funny that the only ones asking for Portugal not to be included have Portuguese names. And by the way, Stanley G. Payne's excerpt is from a book.
Encyclopedia Britannica is a great source as well, you can't deny that.
The Encyclopædia Britannica is a general English-language encyclopaedia published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., a privately held company. The articles in the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopaedias.[1][2]68.179.176.914:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. You do not seem to understand what we have at hand here. Two non-POV neutral sources which support that Portugal was incorporated into the Spanish Empire. You have one source, which states the same (albeit much more vague), but can't be used anyway because there is controversy surrounding the work, and claims of bias from other historians.
What you are trying to do is throw us off. We're not stupid, that map shows the Portuguese territories as if they weren't part of the Spanish empire. Not only that, these territories are not in the anachronous map. The map that I put up, on the other hand, is perfectly accurate.
I've been looking at the article in more detail and I find it very troubling that Henry Kamen is basically the main source for everything. This has to be changed according to wikipedia's rules. I suggest using Stanley G. Payne' work, as there is no controversy surrounding it and the author is a well known Iberian historian.
Well, let's keep focused on the map first and then we'll move on to other questions. From the last response by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick it seems he no longer contends that the "Spanish Empire" was made out of several independent kingdoms under the authority of the same king, one of them being Portugal. Thus, Portugal and its empire had the same status as Aragon and its domains, Cataluña, Valencia or Navarra. Portugal even had a viceroy just like the other kingdoms.
Now to the map. What's the purpose of the map in the infobox? It seems it wants to show all territories that at one time or another where under the rule of the Spanish Monarchy. Was Portugal under the rule of the Spanish Monarchy? The answer is obviously yes, it was ruled by Spanish kings for eighty years. So, why should they be excluded? --Victor1213:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
More quotes:
Asia in the Making of Europe By Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley [3] : "According to the agreement signed by the King at Tomar in April, 1581, Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese were permitted to travel within the Spanish empire and to trade freely in Spain itself. The Portuguese were not to trade or settle in the Spanish empire; an idential prohibition applied to the Spanish with respect to the Portuguese empire."
History of Portugal By Marques, Antonio Henrique R. de Oliveira [4]"From the middle of the sixteenth century on, the Portuguese Empire and its general economic organization - with its full impact on Portugal's ultimate destiny - formed a sort of complement to the Spanish Empire" - a mere complement? If the Portuguese empire ceased to exist and became part of the Spanish empire, the word "complement" wouldn't be very appropriate, would it?
European Colonialism from Portuguese Expansion to the Spanish-America War By Hart, Jonathan Locke, Jonathan Hart [5]"From about 1600 onward, the Dutch, who were in the process of a long break with Spain while portugal had drawn closer in an Iberian union, created great problems worldwide for the Portuguese empire...In the final years of the sixteenth century the Dutch attacked Iberian colonies, while Spain and Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire." - again, the P and S empires are separate entities
Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil By James Lockhart, Stuart B. Schwartz [6]"In 1580 the Spanish and Portuguese empires came under the joint rule of Philip II of Spain when the Portuguese Aviz dynasty died out. The two empires were kept administratively distinct, but the union did create problems and opportunities for both crowns."
What is abundantly clear from these quotes is that (a) historians consider by this stage the two political entities to be "Spain" and "Portugal", not the various sub-realms of the monarchy and (b) the two empires were administered separately. The pair of you are engaged in original research, and I'm now fed up of arguing about it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
As you like quotes so much let me repeat one of your own, the first one by Kamen: Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm. The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. Union of free and autonomous states, thus Portugal's autonomy under Spanish kings was not an exception but rather the rule. Are you saying Kamen is lying here?
As for your more recent quotes, none of them actually claims Portugal was the only autonomous state in the empire. Furthermore, none of them deals with the Spanish Empire as a whole as you can see from the titles; they either study colonialism (in Latin America and Asia) or Portugal itself. Thus, they are the wrong place to look for info on how the Spanish Empire worked as a whole. I'd recommend reading books about the Spanish monarchy itself, for instance, The Hispanic World in Crisis and Change and Spain under the Habsburgs by John Lynch.
Let me repeat my argument. I'm not denying Portugal was an autonomous state under Spanish Kings. On the contrary, that was the normal state of things for the domains of Philip II and the rest of Spanish Habsburgs. So, why exclude Portugal and its empire from Philip's domains? --Victor1200:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Because it's an article about the Spanish Empire, not the Habsburg realms. The quotes I provide clearly demonstrate that historians distinguish the Spanish Empire from the Portuguese Empire during the time of the union of the crowns. Ergo, the Portuguese Empire should not appear as part of the Spanish Empire on a map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
The article currently states: Because of this, many historians use "Habsburg" and "Spanish" almost interchangeably when referring to the dynastic inheritance of Charles V or Philip II. What did the domains of Philip II had in common? The only thing that tied together all the territories included in this article was allegiance to the same king, aside from this, each state had its own laws, taxes, even its own Parliaments as you can see in any book about this period. There was no unified Spanish State until the Bourbons in the XVIII century, just personal unions, this applies to Castilla, Aragón, the Low Countries as well as Portugal. --Victor1200:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Whatever the technical details of the union of the crowns, historians distinguish Spain v Portugal and Spanish Empire vs Portuguese Empire. You are free to deny the usage of the term "Spain" during this era in spite of its usage by historians, but thankfully one of the founding principles of WP is that editors' own original research is not allowed to pollute articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You keep labeling it as original research. I smell denial in the air, considering the sources we have and the ones you lack.
68.179.176.901:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Sources I lack? I'll repeat two of them for your benefit that spell it out in english simple enough for a ten year old to understand:
Asia in the Making of Europe By Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley [7] : "According to the agreement signed by the King at Tomar in April, 1581, Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese were permitted to travel within the Spanish empire and to trade freely in Spain itself. The Portuguese were not to trade or settle in the Spanish empire; an idential prohibition applied to the Spanish with respect to the Portuguese empire."
Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil By James Lockhart, Stuart B. Schwartz [8]"In 1580 the Spanish and Portuguese empires came under the joint rule of Philip II of Spain when the Portuguese Aviz dynasty died out. The two empires were kept administratively distinct, but the union did create problems and opportunities for both crowns."
And again that doesn't state that Portugal was independant, it was autonomous. This means nothing as Spain was made up of autonomous entities. And as my source stated, its status was no different than any of the other viceroyalties. And yes Portugal had a viceroy as Victor was kind enough to point out. In fact what you are doing here is interpreting autonomous and seperate as independant. The only one doing original research here is you:
Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."
If you are going to engage in a debate, please READ it before swanning in and gracing us with your intelligence and education. If you bother to scroll up, you'll see I posted them several paragraphs up. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You're supposed to keep arguments civil...
And you must have edited those in after I read the original message, I never saw them.
Actually you were right. I saw one of victor's posts end similarly and I thought that is where I left off. Still your behavior in unacceptable.
68.179.176.901:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Ok, now that I've read this I'll comment firstly that the second source you quote is from an author with a Portuguese name. That could easily be a biased point of view. Just as Spanish historians should be kept from being a source as much as possible.
Secondly, the Spanish Habsburgs are what historians refer to as the Spanish empire. They were the political entity uniting Spain. The Spanish Habsburgs spoke Spanish, had their government based in Spain, and had a majority of Spanish administrators and generals. Hence why they are called the Spanish Habsburgs. Portugal became one of the territories of the Spanish empire when the Spanish king took the crown (which needed an invasion army to secure it). Red, seriously even your sources are agreeing with this, you are just interpreting autonomous in the incorrect way.
68.179.176.902:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Your approach seems to be to rubbish whichever historians I quote. In all honesty, who do you think the community of editors will believe - you, or published authors? Come on, get real. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh dear...first of all everything I have claimed is sourced, I'm not conjuring this up on the spot. I am only commenting on a fact that could disagree with wikipedia's policies, simple as that.
Anyways, look at this quote of yours: Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese . How is this backing you up? All your sources simply claim it was autonomous. Notice how it says Portugal had substantial control over its territories.
68.179.176.902:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Original research...? All historians dealing with "Spain" under the Habsburgs understand "Spanish Empire" as the domains of the "Spanish kings", nothing else. Not one of them tries to prove that Spain existed as a nation in the 16th and 17th centuries. But as you'll probably won't believe my words, I'll try to hit the library tomorrow for sourcing. Please be patient, more is coming :-) --Victor1202:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
While we're waiting, here's another source.
The History of Portugal By James Maxwell Anderson [9]"Felipe...swore not to meddle in the customs and laws of his new acquisition, to maintain the current system of government and not to appoint Spaniards to high office in Portugal, and, in general, this pledge was kept. The overseas empires of both nations remained separate."
Let me just repeat those words again, because they are key to this discussion. The overseas empires of both nations remained separate Does it have to be spelled out any clearer than that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, seperate or autonomous don't equal independent. We know that the territories themselves were continued to be run by Portuguese people (except under Philip IV), however as the sources say it was under the same political freedom as any other Spanish state. You're interpreting seperate and autonomous incorrectly.
68.179.176.913:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
To remind you, this discussion is about whether Portuguese colonies should be shown on a map of the Spanish Empire. And to repeat my last source: The overseas empires of both nations remained separate. It doesn't get any clearer than that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, and again, seperate doesn't mean independent. As the sources say, administratively it was identical to the other states making up the Spanish empire.
Good example of the power Spain held over the Portuguese. It says the Portuguese refer to this period as the time of Spanish captivity.
I might also like to add, though this is a bit off topic, that the Spanish empire was the first global empire because it had territories on every continent unlike Portugal (Portugal never had any territories in Europe, north America, and I think they hadn't any in Oceania either).
68.179.176.913:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Look, I'm not - and no historian as far as I can see - is denying that the Spanish monarch was unpopular in Portugal, nor that he was Spanish and nor that he was the monarch. By definition, being the ruler he held ultimate sway over Portugal and its colonies. However, he was Felipe I of Portugal and Felipe II of Spain. Portugal continued to exist as a separate crown and state, and the Empire continued to exist as a separate Empire - administered separately, and with clear boundaries (Spaniards not allowed to settle in the Portuguese Empire and Portugese not allowed to settle in the Spanish; Jesuits and Fransiscans not allowed to enter each others' preaching grounds - e.g. Japan vs Philippines). To get back to the point: the empires were separate and the maps should reflect this. I challenge you to provide, in a published book (not a website - anyone can post what they like on the internet without peer review), a map of the Spanish Empire showing the Portuguese colonies subsumed into it.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
1. He was also King of Naples, King of Aragon, etc etc.
2. Portugal wasn't an independant state. It was under the same administration as the rest of the states making up the Spanish empire.
3. The map should reflect all the territories making up the Spanish empire, no matter how autonomous they were. All those running the Portuguese territories were ethnically Portuguese, but were ultimately Spanish subjects.
4. As far as I know Victor is doing exactly that today, according to his last post. Still the sources I have given, though not containing a map, back us up quite strongly. And these are good sources. I have given books: Stanley G. Payne, and Encyclopedia Britannica. Plus the books you have sourced ironically back us up as well.
68.179.176.914:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Your style of argument reminds me somewhat of trying to have a rational discussion with a religious person: they will always rewrite the groundrules of the discussion such that it is impossible to refute what they are saying. I provide a source from a published author, your response is to not address the author's points, but to attack the author (an ad hominem argument). I provide sources from other published authors, your response is to say that I am interpreting them incorrectly. It's a pointless exercise debating with you, so I rather feel I am wasting my time. At least Victor is attempting to find some published material that backs up his point of view, as I have done. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually the full title for Phillip II was King of León and Castilla (as Phillip II), of Aragón, of Portugal, of Naples, and of Jerusalem (as Phillip I), of Navarre (as Phillip III), of Granada, of Valencia, of Toledo, of Galicia, of Mallorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaén, of the Algarbes, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canaries Islands, of the Indies, of the Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano, Count of Barcelona (as Phillip I), Lord of Vizcaya and of Molina, Duke of Athens and of Neopatria, Count of Rosellón and of Cerdaña, Marquis of Oristán and of Gociano, Duke of Burgundy (as Phillip V), of Brabante, of Milan, Count of Flandes and of Tirol, etc. So, as you see Portugal was no exception. Now I'm leaving for the library. --Victor1214:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
It is a common problem at Wikipedia that well intentioned contributors get hung up on technicalities and wish to make articles absolutely "correct" even when that goes against the standards of academia. From my reading (and please note, I have a substantial personal library downstairs), King Philip is referred to as Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Historians do not go to great lengths to spell out his full title, or to describe "Spain" as a patchwork of substates, one of which is Portugal from 1580-1640. Historians use the terms "Spain" and "Portugal", "Spanish Empire" and "Portuguese Empire". The article should follow the standards of the academic community, not the original research of well intentioned authors who wish to be "absolutely correct". Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Uh, goes against the standards of academia? Are you not acknowledging the sources all of a sudden? Also, anything from your readingis original research.
68.179.176.915:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
I read the Wikipedia policy you linked to. It basically says there isn't a problem if the source is acceptable. Guess what, all the sources mentioned are more than acceptable. I don't know if you're just grasping for straws or what, it doesn't make sense.
68.179.176.915:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Your style of argument reminds me somewhat of trying to have a rational discussion with a religious person: they will always rewrite the groundrules of the discussion such that it is impossible to refute what they are saying. I provide a source from a published author, your response is to not address the author's points, but to attack the author (an ad hominem argument). I provide sources from other published authors, your response is to say that I am interpreting them incorrectly. It's a pointless exercise debating with you, so I rather feel I am wasting my time. At least Victor is attempting to find some published material that backs up his point of view, as I have done. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
You can belittle me all you want. It wont affect me. I haven't "attacked" any of the authors without reason. Or are you saying that I'm incorrect in my judgement of them? Isn't it policy in wikipedia to avoid controversial or possibly biased sources? I have no problem with the majority of your sources. But unfortunately those sources don't back what you claim.
I claim that Portugal was just another state making up the Spanish empire. All of the sources posted back this. All of the sources are 100% acceptable. If you have any problem with my sources be free to tell me what the problem is. I don't know how many times I have to post this.
And I'm afraid if you can't refute the statements that message of yours was responding to, you've already lost this argument.
68.179.176.920:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Hi, just wanted to leave clear that this infobx helps a LOT with many key data, do we really have remove it because they don't have either at other empire pages?--AndersmusicianVOTE04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The start and end date on the infobox are wrong and very controversial among other things. better just leave the infobox out. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.205.33 (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
There is evidence that the Spanish Empire is still around however meager. If the infobox is added it will just start edit wars on the dates and then the same ideas might be applied to the other empires articles such as the british empire starting more edit wars. Dont add it please.--71.252.205.3306:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Skidbladnir
It will just be a source of disputes: dates, flags, succeeded by/preceded by, whether or not the empire was a former country. And no other European empire article has an info box. The article has survived for many years without one, leave it be. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, we don't want any more disputes, do we? ;-) I think the problem with this article is that it lacks a clear definition of what is understood by "Spanish Empire", hence all the problems with the map and the infobox. If we can get a properly sourced definition maybe we can work them out. --Victor1223:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
The "Spanish Empire"
It seems to me our current problem with the map stems from a lack of clarity about what is understood by the term "Spanish Empire". Does it include all the territories dominated by Spanish kings or only those dominated by "Spain"? If it's the former, then Portugal and its colonies need to be included in the map, if it's the latter, they shouldn't. IMHO, to solve this problem we need to look at books dealing with the "Spanish Empire" and its character rather than books about colonialism or Portugal as the latter only provide a partial view of what the empire was.
I've been rereading some books on this for references purposes, so far most of them are from Spanish authors or Spanish translations. I'll try to find more books in English on Monday or Tuesday, they were at another library :-( In the meantime I have some interesting quotes from one of the leading historians of "Imperial Spain": John Huxtable Elliott
As for the character of the Empire:
One of the greatest empires in world history is known to us as the Spanish Empire but this is not the name by which it was known to Spaniards themselves (...) Their monarch was not an emperor but a king ruling over an agglomerate of territories known as la monarquía española ("The Spanish Monarchy") and consists of Spain itself, the possesions of the king in Italy and northern Europe, and his American territories, known to Spaniards as las Indias. John H. Elliott, Spain and its world, 1500-1700: selected essays, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 7.
As for what the Empire consisted of:
In mentally and physically breaking out beyond the confines of the Pillars of Hercules into a wider world, the Spaniards were conscious of achieving something that surpassed even the feats of the Romans. They were on their way to a universal empire which was genuinely universal, in the sense of being global. This global advance can be simply plotted by a series of dates: the 1490s and 1500s, the conquest of the Caribbean; the 1520s, the conquest of Mexico; the 1530s, the conquest of Peru; the 1560s, the Philippines; the 1580s, the annexation of Portugal and the consequent acquisition of Portuguese Africa, the Far East, and Brazil. From this moment the empire of the king of Spain was indeed one on which the sun never set. John H. Elliott, Spain and its world, 1500-1700: selected essays, p. 8.
As for the status of Portugal within the empire:
Portugal was united to Castile in 1580 in exactly the same way as the crown of Aragon had united to Castile a hundred years before, preserving its own laws, institutions, and monetary system, and united only in sharing a common sovereign. John H. Elliott, Imperial Spain, 1469-1716, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963), p. 274.
From this quotes it seems clear to me that:
The Spanish Empire was composed of the domains of the Spanish king
Thus, it included Portugal and its colonies from 1580 to 1640 according to Elliott
The Spanish Empire contained within itself autonomous regions and kingdoms. Portugal was not an special case but a repetition of what had occurred earlier with Aragon. So, if you want to exclude Portugal from the Spanish Empire on the grounds of its autonomy you'll also need to exclude Aragon and its Mediterranean domains.
I'll try to post more sources in English over the next days. Please be patient, no libraries here until Monday. In the meantime please try to consider the point I made on the first paragraph, that in order to solve this dispute we need to focus on what the Spanish Empire was as a whole rather than on studies of its constituent parts. --Victor1222:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I must point out there that all these quotes are from the same author. However, as you have taken the time to find a published source, let's look at some other words later on in the same book (found here: [10]) On page 121 the author says: "The Dutch had taken advantage of the truce (in 1609 - during the Union) to penetrate the Portuguese colonial empire, with potentially grave repercussions for the delicate relationship between Castile and Portugal." Surely, if the Portuguese Empire had ceased to exist during this time and had become subsumed into the Spanish Empire, your author wouldn't be referring to it as the Portuguese colonial empire? Again on page 235, "Castile's sense of national humiliation was increased by the truce with the Dutch in 1609, and bitterness grew as the Dutch exploited the years of peace to prise their way into the overseas empires of Spain and Portugal." Just to remind you what we are debating: you are trying to add a map that shows the "Spanish" empire as Spain+Portugal. Yet the very same author you are using as a reference distinguishes the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, during the time of the Union. This is exactly my point. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Ah, those are excellent. They are very clear and directly address the issue at hand unlike the sources posted before them. Thank you Victor.
As for the definition of the Spanish empire, I think it would be everything under the domain of the King at the time for a few reasons:
1. The Spanish Hapsburgs were based in what is currently part of Spain (Castile).
2. They spoke Castilian (the most prominent Spanish dialect).
3. Most of the administrative positions were held by Spaniards (meaning Basques, Catalans, Castilians, etc.)
4. Most of their military commanders were, again, Spaniards.
Red, the fact that he states Spain annexed Portugal pretty much overrides that. He could simply call it Portuguese because it was still run by ethnic Portuguese people. That doesn't change that fact that the Spanish empire was sovereign of those lands. What you claim is just an interpretation of the adjective Portuguese. Just as my interpretation above, which is equally as valid as yours. The fact he states, as I said, overrides both.
68.179.176.922:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Unfortunately I'm busy with Fluid Mechanics and Strength of Materials, I certainly don't have time to spend in the library this weekend. But I'd be happy to look for one during the week, I'll hit any historical atlas available there.
68.179.176.923:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
I haven't been to the library yet, will probably do so towards the end of the week. However I was looking at one of my books and a different map describes Portugal as part of Spain which I thought should be added to the list of sources. It's a map describing the revolts in the Iberian peninsula from 1520-1652, and with Portugal it reads: inherited by Philip II of Spain, 1580; in revolt against Spain from 1640; recognized as independent 1668.
The book is: The Times Complete History of the World, edited by Richard Overy. Anything related to The Times is a good source in my opinion.
Was in the library today for a few minutes and I managed to look into a couple of historical atlases. I wasn't able to find any map of the Spanish Empire between 1580-1640. But I did stumble upon a map with Portuguese colonies in India and southeast Asia and it was labeled 1498-1580. I'll try to go to another library next week (very busy, one test on Friday and another on Monday).
The historical atlas with that map was simply titled Historical Atlas, and it was by William R. Shepherd. The map is on page 112.
Hello fellow editors! I'm currently swamped with work so I don't have much time for library research, though I certainly plan to get back to you on this. It seems to me, the main points in this discussion are two
Portugal was not an special region of the Spanish Habsburgs domains, as it had the same status as other regions considered part of the "Spanish Empire" such as Aragon. This is the point made by User:68.179.176.9 and me.
No modern scholar considers Portugal and its empire to have formed part of the Spanish Empire, for instance, there are no maps showing both of them as a single entity in modern scholarship. This is the argument of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick.
I'm I right in this sum up? We still need to look more sources to clear this up. Books on the "Spanish Empire" would be the most useful. --Victor1217:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
That is a fair summary, though I would also dispute that Portugal was directly comparable with Aragon in 1580: historians refer to Philip II as King of Spain and King of Portugal. He is not referred to as King of Castile and Aragon and Portugal (and whatever else besides), even if that was his "official" title. By 1580, historians just refer to Spain as Spain, despite the patchwork of crowns that officially composed it (and still do to this day, I might add). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Spain refers to everything possessed by the Spanish Hapsburg at the time. We have several sources stating that the autonomy of Portugal wasn't unique within the empire. And you want us to ignore this because some sources refer to a king of Portugal (which I don't recall seeing)?
So you're denying he is referred to as King of Portugal? What have you read, beyond a Times Historical Atlas? Try this book The Grand Strategy of Philip II By Geoffrey Parker [11] "At his coronation as king of Portugal in 1581...". Or this book, The Colonial Spanish-American City: Urban Life in the Age of Atlantic Capitalism By Jay Kinsbruner, [12] "he was also the king of Portugal". In the index pages of England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel By MR James McDermott [13], "Philip II, as King of Portugal". Let's move onto Philip III of Spain and II of Portugal, if that is not enough for you. Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto [14] "the King of Portugal, Philip II (Philip III of Spain)". I know you strongly believe in your own original research - you're free to write it on your own website or in your own book - just not at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course Philip II was crowned king of Portugal, as he had just inherited this country. However, can you find a source of Philip III of Spain being crowned as king of Portugal?
As for the second one, the full quote is He began selling lesser governmental posts, first in Iberia (as he was also the king of Portugal) and then in the colonies. That's just a clarification to remark that Portugal was also part of his domains, don't look too much into it.
As for the third one, it's just an index
As for the fourth one that's just the Portuguese point of view. You could also find other titles for Philip II in books about Aragon or Cataluña. --Victor1223:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more. I'm enjoying this.
Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto [15] "On the eighteenth of August Philip of Spain was proclaimed king of Portugal"
Historical and Descriptive Account of British India [16] "The exclusive right, however, to this line of navigation was claimed by Philip II., who had now succeeded as King of Portugal" (an old one, this book, goes back to 1832 - historians have obviously been agreed on this point for a while now)
History of Portugal By Marques, Antonio Henrique R. de Oliveira [17] "he was solemnly sworn in and acclaimed King of Portugal with the title Philip I".
As for the first one, see above. As for the second one kind of the same. Also as this is a book on the Indies it is not necessary to mention Philip's other titles but it is important to mention his status as king of Portugal. As for the second one, see above (again :-) So, can you find a source (even Portuguese ones) that say Philip III was crowned king of Portugal? --Victor1223:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I thought you were resting your case on these points, sorry. Anyway, I think it is an important point that Philip II was crowned king of Portugal because he had just acquired that realm, however, Philip III was never crowned as such as he inherited the whole empire (Portugal included) from his father. --Victor1223:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I was just responding to your buddy's "...you want us to ignore this because some sources refer to a king of Portugal (which I don't recall seeing)". Anyway, I could equally ask you to prove he wasn't "crowned" as king of Portugal, as presumably there was some form of coronation. It needn't have been a separate coronation to that of the Spanish crown, and if it wasn't a worthy enough coronation to be mentioned by historians, you can hardly use failure to mention the coronation at all as confirmation that he was not crowned king of Portugal. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Our buddy, ;-) As for coronation, there were no crowning ceremonies for the Spanish Habsburgs. You can search all you want, you won't find any crowning in Madrid for them. What they do was swear to uphold the laws of each of the realms, for instance before the "Cortes" of Aragón and so on. The point I'm trying to make is that Portugal was not treated differently from the rest of the empire. Philip II was crowned king of Portugal just to incorporate it to its dominions. Thereafter it was part of the same unit, so there was no need for separate Portuguse crownings for Philip III and Philip IV. --Victor1201:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally, I'm not sure where you will find this magic map, but you don't just have to find one map. You will have to show that it is the consensus of historians to draw maps of empires at the time with Portuguese colonies labelled as Spanish. You will have to show that it is the consensus of historians to not refer to the "Portuguese" and "Spanish" empires between the years of 1580 and 1640 - just to the "Spanish" empire (as though the "Portuguese" one mysteriously disappeared for sixty years). You'd have to provide quotes from historians such as "the Spanish colony of Brazil" or "the Spanish colony of Macau". Had you done much reading on the subject, you'd know that historians do not do this. They don't do this because it wasn't the case. The colonies remained Portuguese, in language, culture, religion (Jesuit vs Franciscans), defence and adminstration. You don't have to go to the library to find this out: try books.google.com. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
So you're denying he is referred to as King of Portugal? What have you read, beyond a Times Historical Atlas? Try this book The Grand Strategy of Philip II By Geoffrey Parker [11] "At his coronation as king of Portugal in 1581...". Or this book, The Colonial Spanish-American City: Urban Life in the Age of Atlantic Capitalism By Jay Kinsbruner, [12] "he was also the king of Portugal". In the index pages of England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel By MR James McDermott [13], "Philip II, as King of Portugal". Let's move onto Philip III of Spain and II of Portugal, if that is not enough for you. Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto [14] "the King of Portugal, Philip II (Philip III of Spain)". I know you strongly believe in your own original research - you're free to write it on your own website or in your own book - just not at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I was talking about the quotes you have listed so far in this discussion. I thought it would be obvious.
Also, what I meant is he wasn't known as the king of Portugal first and formost, he was known as the king of Spain. Those quotes just comfirm that he inherited the crown.
I'm afraid we're going to need mediation for this in the end. You keep derailing this argument.
All of your reasoning is very superficial, whereas we are basing our arguments on the facts of the administration of the empire rather than what adjective is used when describing territories.
How many maps will it take for it to be considered consensus by the way? Because obviously I can't count them all up.
I only had half an hour between classes to do it last time. But after my test on Monday, I'll be free to go the the library downtown. The fact is I simply couldn't find any map of the empire in this period at all, so I haven't found anything that contradicts me either. Anyways, I'd say 3 maps should be enough to show it's consensus.
68.179.176.913:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
I had enough time to go to the library between classes today and I found another source.
In 1580-81, Philip II of Spain, claiming the throne, conquered Portugal and acquired its empire, but national sovereignty was restored by the revolution of 1640 and the accession of John IV, founder of the Bragança dynasty, to the Portuguese throne.
Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Europe, Tenth edition, Gale group.
68.179.176.916:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Have you two checked out the introduction to the Spanish Empire at Encarta? [18]. "At its greatest extent", the second paragraph begins - so we'd expect the Portuguese territories to be included, if you two are right, no? "in the Americas, Spanish territory stretched from Alaska through the western United States, Mexico, and Central America to southern Chile and Patagonia, and from the state of Georgia south to the Caribbean islands, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina."(No mention of Brazil!)"In Africa, at various times Spain occupied territories in the Western Sahara (present-day Morocco), and along the coast of what is now Equatorial Guinea, including the offshore island of Fernando Póo (now Bioko)."(No mention of the territories that would later become Guinea-Bisseau, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Angola)"In Asia, Spain ruled the Philippine Islands, which the Spanish named after King Philip II in 1542."(No mention of Malacca, Macau, Goa, East Timor or Diu) Yet more evidence that the academic consensus is that, if we are to draw an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire, which by definition shows its greatest extent, THE PORTUGUESE COLONIES SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED!!!!!!!! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't find any maps within the period at all. Also, that article seems to refer to a certain date when the Spanish empire was at its largest (under Charles III of Bourbon), it isn't anachronous.
Don't worry, I'll find a map of the Spanish empire between 1580 and 1640 eventually, but I'm very busy.
68.179.176.923:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
How dramatic. I looked into 5-6 historical atlases, and I didn't find any map in the period at all. What makes you think it's non-existant? Tomorrow I'll try to go to the larger library downtown.
68.179.176.914:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
The Penguin Atlas of Modern History : to 1815 by Colin McEvedy, on the page entitled "The World in 1600 - Political Units". [19]. "Philip II of Spain obtained the Portuguese crown in 1580. However the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what us arguing about that would achieve. The point is: should an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire show Portuguese colonies as of 1580-1640 as though they are a single legal and political entity along with the Spanish Empire? The answer is indisputably NO, for all the sources listed above that make the point they were distinct. The Portuguese Empire was left to administration by the Portuguese. Also, remember something: everything that you have said, everything our anon friend has said, and everything I have said, is all consistent with the other map which is labelled "Spanish and Portuguese Empires during the time of the Iberian Union", with the two in different colours. I am - and others are, if you read above - are just disputing your map which make a far, far stronger claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Erm, did I say that? Like I said, I'm not getting into a discussion about this point. I have provided more than enough sources that back up the claim the two empires were distinct. If you want to continue this discussion you'll need to provide some sources that say they (the empires) weren't. You're own conclusions from statements such as "Spain 'conquered' Portugal" don't count I'm afraid - read WP:SYN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I saw that same map (it was one of the atlases I looked at), and you ignored a very important part of that caption. It says that the Portuguese territories could be considered part of the empire. The author clearly contradicts the other sources by referring to Portugal as a special territory under Philip II, which it clearly was not. Needless to say I discarded the source, not only is he contradicting the other sources but he doesn't seem to be sure whether or not to include the territories in the first place.
And by the way, your indisputable sources claim it was distinct. Well, so were other parts of the empire. It's not a valid argument.
68.179.176.917:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
You have a very inflated sense of your own importance, don't you? You - a fluid mechanics student, barely in his twenties, I presume, perhaps even still in his teens - can "discard" the work of not only Henry Kamen, but now Colin McEvedy, deemed worthy enough for an obituary in the Times [20] and the Independent [21]? Why don't you take a few moments to read those obituaries and read about the man you are rubbishing? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not rubbishing him. I'm pointing out was he says in the caption, which you chose and are choosing to ignore.
Is that the best you can come up with? A page on the history of Catalonia that doesn't even mention the words Spanish Empire, Portugal, the Iberian Union or the Portuguese Empire? I hear the sound of the bottoms of barrels being scraped... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It states that during this period it was in a dynastic union, just as Portugal was. Sorry if that is too broad a concept for you to take in.
68.179.176.918:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
I believe Victor is correct in his approach to this argument. We need to find a consensus for the definition of the Spanish empire. Was it everything ruled by the Spanish Hapsburgs?
68.179.176.918:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
No, I think I am now actually wasting my time. Either accept the article the way it is, or follow the Wikipedia dispute procedure. The first step in that after talk page discussion, which has now taken place ad nauseam, is opening up a request for comment. A word of advice though: you may find it easy to discard sources at will, but I highly doubt anyone will take your word over published authors. And you'll have to do a lot better than have as the backbone of your claim an argument based on synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The only author I (and many historians as I have showed) have a problem with is Henry Kamen. He has a controversial point of view of the empire, even going so far as to say the traditionally named Spanish Netherlands weren't part of the Spanish empire at all, among other things. So before it was original research, now it's synthesis? Right.
68.179.176.918:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Synthesis IS original research. From WP:SYN: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research" That is the problem with synthesis - IT IS NOT FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE. If you are going to contribute to Wikipedia, please take the time to read its policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Except that most of my arguments are backed by published sources (the latest one is the only exception) which have been quoted to no end.
68.179.176.9 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
68.179.176.918:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Your argument is based on synthesis just as much as mine is. Neither of us have a source saying explicitly that the Portuguese territories were part of the empire, nor that they were independent. We are both using reasoning that leads us to conclude so.
68.179.176.918:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
My argument is based on the following quotes, each from different authors, look further up the page if you want the names and titles:
The overseas empires of both nations remained separate
Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire
(Spain and) Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire
The two empires were kept administratively distinct
the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union
And by the way, those quotes don't say Portugal was independent. They say it was seperate, legally distinct, run by Portuguese. The first two argumets are countered by our own, which state that it was common throughout the empire. If you were to go by that argument, the Spanish empire wouldn't even exist. You see the problem here is Spain as we know it wasn't a unified country in this time period. It was more of a confederation of states under an absolute monarchy. Now we go back to the question victor proposed: what was the Spanish empire during this period? Because you just as well know that historians do refer to a Spanish empire.
Look, I'm tired of arguing with you. We're obviously not going to convince each other. If you feel strongly enough about the matter that you want to get more views on it, open up a request for comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
A contemporary map from 1587, seven years after the union of the crowns commenced [24]. In it you can clearly see Bresilia, a Lusitanis (Latin for Portugal, in case you don't know). So the cartographers of the time didn't even draw maps the way you claim they should be. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
The map I provided is more specific. The first maps you provided convey a large swatch of time in which it could easily be deemed not necessary, plus they're from the same author as the one I first posted. Are you saying he suddenly changed his mind and decided Portugal wasn't part of the empire? The last two are questionable, they don't exactly look very up-to-date if you know what I mean. We need modern, accurate maps here not contemporary of the period.
I just came back from the library. Only took me half an hour to find 5 maps, and I barely even touched into the subject.
Map 1: Map of the world c. 1600 including Portuguese overseas territories in the Spanish empire, plus Portugal itself obviously. Page 64, Atlas of World History, by John Haywood, Ph.D.
Map 2: Map of Europe c. 1618 including Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 65, Atlas of World History, by John Haywood, Ph.D.
Map 3: Map of Europe including Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 142-143, A History of the Modern World, by R.R. Palmer and Joel Colton.
Map 4: Map of Europe includng Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 56, The History of Spain, by Peter Pierson.
Unfortunately for you, I have this book in my personal collection. It does not show Portugal as "part of the Spanish Empire". It has Portugal half-shaded with the colour of "Spanish Habsburgs". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Map 5: Map of Europe including Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 91, The History Atlas of Europe, by Ian Barnes and Robert Hudson.
I'm guessing this wont be enough to convince you though, I'll go back tomorrow if that is the case. Now that I have the maps I'll see if I can find any accompanying text to add to our source list.
Maps 2-5 are maps of Europe. We are discussing a world map of the Spanish and Portuguese empires here. So that leaves you with one map, in a book that covers world history from the beginning of human time to the present day in 121 maps (hardly a work that a historian would have on their shelves - more of a child's stocking present to help with their history homework). Hardly a convincing source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You aren't using the synthetic argument that because maps of Iberia at the time have the border between Spain and Portugal removed that Wikipedia should have a map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires with the border removed. So far, one map has been provided, and it wasn't even in a source that specializes on the history of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. Instead it was in a reference book for laypeople. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
It's an atlas written by a Ph.D.
And what kind of child reads a historical atlas? Just because it has plenty of images?
Oh and I could do without the childish comments. I've already put up with multiple attacks on my person during the entire discussion.
68.179.176.923:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Personally, I would colour the map in two shades, one for the overseas Spanish colonial empire, and one for the European territories that came not through maritime exploration and conquistadors but through dynastic inheritance. I would then have no problem with Portugal being shaded in the second colour along with the Netherlands, Sicily etc. The point behind this map would be that the two "types" of territory were entirely different beasts. Incidentally, I do not deny that you will find maps of Iberia marked "K. of Spain" (I seem to recall even Mr McEvedy does this). I do however deny that it is the norm to imply (either in a map or in words) that the Portuguese Empire ceased to exist for 60 years. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying it ceased to exist, I'm saying it was incorporated into the Spanish crown which is as you can see what historians refer to as the Spanish empire at this time. And I'm glad you're coming to a reasonable agreement. However there's a problem: how do we deal with Castile and Aragon? They were in a dynastic union. Philip the II was the first Spanish Hapsburg, and he inherited Castile and Aragon as seperate crowns among the other territories.
I don't see why you have an issue with the map I put up in the first place: it describes the Portuguese territories as ruled jointly under the Spanish sovereign.
68.179.176.923:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
No, this is what you were changing it to "in the first place". [26] "An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898)", it said. And as you can see from some of my quotes, historians (who specialise in this particular area) refer to the Spanish and Portuguese empires, Spain and Portugal, distinct from each other, during this time. So please don't claim all "historians" to be on your side here. As for Castile and Aragon, by this stage of history, "Spain" is used to refer to Castile and Aragon. The crowns of Castile and Aragon are still technically separate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
You just said you would accept adding Portuguese territories in a shade described as gained through inheritence. Or do you mean just Portugal should be added in that shade? And Spain as you describe it wasn't really so until the Bourbon dynasty. As far as I know there is no title such as King of Castile or King of Aragon in this day.
68.179.176.923:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
OK, I reread your post and realized you meant European territories. Well, I suggest we keep it simple. If the map that is already up is acceptable my version of it should be too.
68.179.176.900:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
A message for Victor: here [27] (p17) is a map of the world, in 1600, showing the Spanish and Portuguese empires distinct, from our friend Colin McEvedy. On page 35 is a map of Europe, in 1600, showing Portugal subsumed into Spain. As for Edward, "keeping it simple" is the problem: it has the potential to mislead. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Remember what he says in the caption of the first map. I don't remember exactly but it's something along the lines of: more could be added to this map since Philip II inherited the Portuguese crown. Then he goes on to say (as you quoted) that it retained its administration of the empire. So obviously it is a matter of opinion according to him, or he wouldn't state the possibility of those territories being included. And if it's OK for the Netherlands, the Burgundian lands, etc to be shown in the same shade now, why is it all of a sudden an issue if we include Potugal in the map?
68.179.176.913:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
We're at the compromising stage! That's an improvement. Now let me see the map... Hmmm, I think that if you're gonna show the Portuguese border in the Iberian Peninsula you should also show the borders of the crowns of Aragon and Navarra as both were inherited in much the same way as Portugal and The Lower Countries. BTW, what's the baseline year for this map from Philip II on or from the Catholic Monarchs. That's necessary if you want to separate inherited countries from conquered ones. There are also some minor corrections needed. Genoa is shaded as part of the Spanish Empire when that was never the case. Also in Italy the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies seems to extend as far north as Rome which was not the case. --Victor1215:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I still think McEvedy's map isn't exactly as clear as you put it. Either way, as for the map you suggest, I still think the definition of Spain in this time needs to be cleared.
68.179.176.917:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
How is the map not clear when it has a date 1600, a section of the Americas labelled "Spanish" and a series of dots labelled "Portuguese"? Who, I ask you, would not find that as clear as crystal? FYI, McEvedy does the same - differentiating Spanish and Portuguese possessions - in maps for 1600 in The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Pacific [29], and in The Penguin Atlas of African History [30]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, we need definitions. Maybe even divide the article in Spanish Habsburgs Empire and Spanish Bourbons Empire or just Spanish Monarchy Empire? --Victor1217:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and another issue with the map is there are territories that are missing as well: the northern portion of the Netherlands wasn't always independent. Plus some short-lived territories are also missing that are in the other map. Northern Taiwan was Spanish for 17 years (they had two forts there, and a few geographical features even have Spanish names), and part of New Guinea also shows up in some maps I've come by. Genoa wasn't part, but it was a very small territory and it might be tough to seperate it from Milan and make it look presentable. As for Rome, that can easily be fixed (just remove the top-left corner of the Italian shaded area).
68.179.176.917:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Well, all I did was recolour the existing map. Those things can be fixed. What is your evidence that Formosa had Spanish forts???? Dutch, don't you mean? I see you both also conveniently failed to respond to this map I provided - I'll repeat: Another approach is adopted by the Penguin Atlas of World History [31] page 242 - the empires are shown as one but labelled the Spanish-Portuguese Colonial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Another map. C. R. Boxer (probably the most respected English language historian of Portuguese imperial history) The Dutch Seaborne Empire [32] - page 101 - in a map entitled "Dutch conquests in the West Indies and Brazil" - Bahia is marked as Portuguese, at the time the Dutch nabbed it, in the year of 1624. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Let's clear some ideas. Philip II's army entered Portugal to secure his position as heir to the Portuguese throne (as the Council of Governors of Portugal, that ruled Portugal after the death of king Henry, appointed, against Anthony and other pretenders). So, it was not an invasion of Portugal by Spain, it was a pretenders war, in this case a pretender that was king of another kingdom (half portuguese, remember Philip's mother was portuguese and he was educated in the portuguese way too). Philip won the war and was acclaimed Philip I of Portugal. The Cortes of Tomar clearly stated that Portugal and the other iberian kingdoms ("Spain") would remain separated, two crowns, one king. So, it was not an annexation but a personal union of two countries. So, de jure Portugal and Spain were never united. In Portugal vice-kings were created not to rule Portugal from Spain but to rule Portugal as an extension of the king's power, i.e. vice-kings were part of the Portuguese hierarquical system but not of Spain, the same way counstries and enterprises today have vice-presidents, they are part of the country/enterprise system and have nothing to do with other countries/enterprises. In particular, they were created to substitute the king in Portugal as the king lived in Spain, to fill the gap that portuguese people felt without a resident king. Now let's see the de facto. Spain (I mean Castile+Aragon+Navarre) had an empire, Portugal another. When the personal union began, both country interests are respected, as it sould be. Portuguese empire was administrated by Portugal, not by Spain, and Spanish empire was administrated by Spain, not by Portugal. So, both empires were de facto separated, as none of the countries had power to control the other empire. It is an error call it Habsburg empire, because it was never an empire, but two (it did not have a centralised rule nor one part of it controlled the other). That way Iberian empire is also incorrect. Even worst is called it Spanish empire, as Spain, once synonymous of Iberia, now (XVI century) started to refer only to Castile+Aragon(+Navarre), other personal union that started a century before. And also because today Spain is clearly different from Iberia. So, Portuguese empire was not part of the Spanish empire. Of course Portugal, who ruled its empire, was also not part of the Spanish empire. You can't rule a territory independently if you're controlled by someone else. Câmara20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
First in response to Red: I can't see any map in that link. Tell me the page in the book and I'll check it out later. And to Camara, as has been shown through the multiple souces that are probably way up there by now, Portugal was in the same condition as any other Hapsburg territory. It retianed its laws, and administration of the territories. Secondly, you need sources for what you claim. Most of what I read there is opinion. Also, the maps I provided clearly contradict your view. I'm sorry if it hurts your national pride, even Red admits that at least Portugal should be added. You say that Portugal was seperate because it was in a dynastic union. Well, sorry to say that Portugal isn't unique in that regard either. All the sources are posted in the long discussion we have had. I'd recommend you read it if you haven't already.
68.179.176.921:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Page 242. Also, Edward, you did misrepresent the Pierson book map. It does not show Portugal as "part of the Spanish Empire". It has Portugal half-shaded with the colour of "Spanish Habsburgs". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, welcome Càmara, the more the merrier :-). Now for your argument, I think the key lies here: So, it was not an annexation but a personal union of two countries. That's correct but it also applies to all the other kingdoms which integrated the Spanish Monarchy, for instance Aragón and Navarra. As I stated above in a quote by John Elliot, what we now call the "Spanish Empire" was in fact the "Spanish Monarchy" made up of several autonomous kingdoms.
Now if you want to argue that Portugal was autonomous to exclude it from the Spanish Empire you should also argue for the exclusion of the other kingdoms which were equally autonomous with their own courts, laws and viceroys. That way you'd get a map which only includes Castille and its American empire.
So, in conclusion, yeah Portugal was autonomous but so were other kingdoms of the Spanish Monarchy. That's not enough to exclude it. --Victor1221:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's some more evidence that points out just how unique Portugal was (i.e. not unique at all): Legally, Spain's overseas empire was Castile's. Subjects of the Crown of Aragon were excluded, along with all other Europeans. The History of Spain, by Peter Pierson.
68.179.176.921:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Nice!!! That quote makes my exact point!!!! "Legally, Spain's overseas empire was Castile's." This author is defining the overseas empire of Spain as the territories that belonged to Castile. Portugal did not "belong" to Castile, any more than Aragon did - they just shared the same monarch. And if Portugal did not belong to Castile, its overseas empire did not either. THEREFORE the Portuguese and Spanish (Castillian) Empires were separate. Quad Erat Demonstrandum! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're getting ahead of yourself. So now you're saying that the map should just have Castile? And by the way, this quote is taken from before Portugal was part of Spain, this is under Ferdinand and Isabella. The Hapsburgs weren't even in the equation yet. This quote makes two points in our favor: Spain was made up of the territories of the Hispanic monarchy, and Aragonese territories were in the same position as Portuguese territories. This remained that way until the Bourbon dynasty. And so that you can see how your argument is out of context, this is what comes before that quote: While Ferdinand focused on Italy, the American discoveries took on a life of their own and became the envy of Europe.
68.179.176.922:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Au contraire, you were looking for a definition of the Spanish Empire and now you've found it, at least for its overseas part. Those territories that legally belonged to Castile. Anyway, this is all a moot point and original research. I have now provided three atlases by Colin McEvedy that back up my point (whatever you say about the text, a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say), a map in the Atlas of World History, and a map from C. R. Boxer. So far, we've just had one map from you - and I haven't been able to verify yet that you are in fact representing it correctly (although it's a map of Europe and therefore does not count, you misrepresented the legend of the Pierson map). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
That's not a definiton of the Spanish empire. As I said you took the quote from out of context. The only territories at that moment were Castile's. Deny it all you wish, it's very obvious. Secondly, I provided one map that includes all of the Portuguese territories in Asia, Africa, and south America and 4 that include Portugal as part of Spain in Europe. And it doesn't constitute as original research, I have published sources backing me (you like slapping that on everything you can't refute don't you?). I'll check the other two maps of Colin McEvedy, but the first one states it is plausible to include Portuguese territories on the map.
68.179.176.922:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
So if it was just "at that moment", at what point did the overseas empire become the legal property of all of the kingdoms that composed "Spain"? I presume you can point to some legislation or an event that marked this watershed? (No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question) Re McEvedy - doesn't matter what the text says, we are arguing about a MAP, what the conventions of drawing MAPS of the era in question is, MCEVEDY'S MAP IS EXPLICIT, and MCEVEDY IS A REPUTABLE SOURCE. You're not "explaining" that one away. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Easy, under the Bourbons Spain was a unified country, therefore from then on those territories belonged to all of Spain. I just gave you the quote. And as for the map, so you're saying the caption for the map is irrelevant? Also please stop using all caps, just use bold letters.
68.179.176.922:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Erm, the Iberian Union predated the Spanish Bourbons. So you are agreeing that until then, the Spanish overseas empire belonged to Castile. Ergo... bah, can't be bothered to repeat it, I said it above already. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Another quote that illustrates my point: Bourbon Spain was no longer a union of crowns but had become a unified kingdom. There you have it, a clear definition of Hapsburg Spain, a union of crowns.
68.179.176.922:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Let's not forget we are defining the Spanish Empire. In fact, why don't we look at what Encarta defines it as? [33]
"Spanish Empire, overseas territories in North and South America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania that were colonized and administered by Spain". Given that the Portuguese colonies were neither "colonized" nor "administered" by Spain - as per the quotes above - this hardly warrants inclusion of Portuguese colonies, does it? (Nor Portugal, either - but mind you, that's consistent with the legend of my proposed map, if you read carefully). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
"Spanish Empire, overseas territories in North and South America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania that were colonized and administered by Spain". Exactly, it says it's all the territories administered by Spain. And what was Spain? Hint: read the quote I just gave you.
68.179.176.922:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Philip II of Spain was Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Philip III of Spain was Philip III of Spain and Philip II of Portugal. Philip IV of Spain was Philip IV of Spain and Philip III of Portugal. How can Portugal be Spain when there were different crowns? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
He was king of Castile, king of Aragon, king of Portugal, etc. All this together was Spain at that time, as you can see from my source. Spain was the union of these crowns.
68.179.176.9 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
68.179.176.922:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward
Historians don't refer to Philip II of Castile and Aragon, they refer to Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Again, what you are engaged in is original research and synthesis. To repeat, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. To "verify" that your map is not original research, you have to show that "reputable sources" have published it first. So far, you have been able to provide one - just one map - in a book that does not specialise in this area. I, on the other hand, have provided five maps from three different authors. The onus is on you to back up your much stronger claim than the present map makes. You haven't, and you can't. I'm sorry but your complacence on Victor's talk page that you are winning this debate couldn't be more misplaced. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Which historians refer to Philip II as Philip I of Portugal? Portuguese historians? Anyway, that's a moot point as he had different titles on the different territories he ruled. Again, Portugal was not a special case of autonomy, other territories were equally autonomous under the Spanish Habsburgs. --Victor1223:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you misunderstand. I'm not saying he was known as Philip I of Portugal rather than Philip II of Spain. I'm saying that historians recognise he was crowned King of Portugal in its own right. It was a union of the crowns, like James VI of Scotland and I of England, not a "takeover". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Reasons why the anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should not show Portuguese colonies
I thought I'd just summarise my position and evidence again. The key point is that my position is not based on original research or synthesis - it's what can be found out there in reputable sources.
It is not in question that Portugal was ruled (for the large part, unwillingly) by "Spanish" monarchs for sixty years, and maps of Europe can be found showing Portugal within the borders of "Spain", "Spanish realms", "Habsburg realms" etc. The question is, what should a map of the Spanish Empire during this time show? Many maps of European empires can be found, the difficulty is finding one specifically dated for the years of the Iberian Union, to show that the drawing of one particular version for Wikipedia is not "original research".
Colin McEvedy's three historical atlases on Europe [35], Africa [36] and the Pacific [37] clearly demarcate "Spanish" and "Portuguese" colonies in maps for the year 1600.
The Penguin Atlas of World History [38] has a map of the period and labels the empires the "Spanish-Portuguese Colonial Empire".
C. R. Boxer in The Dutch Seaborne Empire [39] - page 101 - drew a map entitled "Dutch conquests in the West Indies and Brazil" - where Bahia is marked as Portuguese, at the time the Dutch occupied it, in the year of 1624.
The following maps by Shepherd The Age of discovery 1340-1600 [40]; The Spread of Colonization, 1600-1700 [41] span the periods of the Iberian Union yet make no suggestion of the "Spanish" empire consuming the "Portuguese".
Contemporary maps of the time [[42][43] label Brazil as "Portuguese", in Italian or Latin.
Another question is what the reader would infer from a map of the "Spanish" empire containing Portuguese colonies. Such a map would be appropriate if the Spanish had taken over the Portuguese empire, and installed their own language, adminstrators, soldiers etc. However, various authors have noted the following characteristics of the empires during the time of the union:
"The overseas empires of both nations remained separate"
"Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire..."
"(Spain and) Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire"
"The two empires were kept administratively distinct"
"the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union"
"From the middle of the sixteenth century on, the Portuguese Empire and its general economic organization - with its full impact on Portugal's ultimate destiny - formed a sort of complement to the Spanish Empire"
What do other encyclopaedias do for articles on "the Spanish Empire"? Encarta's [44] does not even discuss Portuguese colonies, let alone in the context of them being "Spanish", or list them as being so in its explanation of what colonies Spain had. Britannica's article on the history of Spain [45] confirms the quotes above: "Philip respected the laws and privileges of his new subjects and left them to administer their own colonial empire".
As per WP policy at WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Admittedly one book has been put forward as having a map of the "Spanish Empire" containing Portuguese colonies. But, as per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", the fact is that only one map has been found showing Portuguese colonies as Spanish should raise flags that it is not academic consensus to draw such maps. Again, admittedly maps can be found showing Portugal within the borders of "Spain", "Spanish realms", "Habsburg realms" etc, but it would be synthesis WP:SYN and original research WP:OR for Wikipedians to then make the claim that from this, it entails that the Spanish Empire contained the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
One important issue is that this is an anachronistic map. Historical atlases and books don't use anachronistic maps. Thus, the whole concept of an anachronistic map is in itself WP:SYN and WP:OR, isn't it? --Victor1200:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
No, not if the anachronistic territory is the union of all territories that can be found in maps drawn by reputable sources: ie not if it is not making any unverified claims. Saying that an anachronistic map is original research because published authors don't use them is like saying a map drawn in green is original research because all other published authors use red, pink or purple. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Red and I have agreed to include just Portugal itself in the map. However we are still discussing what shades to use. Meanwhile I'm simply uploading the simplest version of the map available.
68.179.176.913:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Edward
Two maps are better than one (perhaps)
The map showing the possessions of the kings during the Spanish Golden Age and the Iberian Union is buried deep in the article. The strictly Spanish Empire map in the infobox doesn't inform enough about the worldwide power of Spain at that time. So mostly as a demo, I went ahead and editted it to show both maps, but only one image shows. My hope is that it becomes possible to show both. I thought the change could only be justified by explaining it in the image caption, which made it more verbose than would be necessary if both images were visible. SamEV21:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I've read much of it, I'm not exactly a newby. But repeating my point: if you accept that despite the formal separateness of the two empires, much Spanish (not just Habsburg monarchical) power came be felt in Portugal and its Empire (or do you not accept that?), then you'd agree it should be shown by depicting the Portuguese empire in that map, set off in a different shade and clearly labelled as being for the most part independent of Spain, right? SamEV22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
The period of the union was sixty years. The Spanish Empire lasted four hundred. It gives the Iberian Union far too much undue weight to have it as the map "at the top" of an article on the Spanish Empire. The map is in the article at the right place, the place which discusses the Union. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hence my proposed solution of showing both maps if possible. That period happens to be the one when Spain was at the height of her power. SamEV00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
One map in the introduction, showing both empires, each in a different shade or color altogether, with a caption clearly identifying each and explaining that Portugal and its empire were only under partial Spanish dominance during 1580-1640, is far better. SamEV11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Me and Red have already discussed this to death. Unless you can find a significant amount of maps that show the Portuguese overseas territories as part of the empire it can't be changed since it is considered synthesis. We have already agreed however that Portugal itself should be included as it is in several maps mentioned in the discussion above. Please leave the article as it is unless you have the necessary means to verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
It cannot be synthesis given that the partial subordination of Portugal and its empire to Spain, especially under the latter two Habsburg kings, is stated in reputable sources. That's why both should be shown and the preceding fact pointed out. Here's how: Take a map like this one ([46] — one which doesn't follow modern boundaries would be needed, however). It's just a map showing both empires, as separate empires. That's fine. The point is that they both appear on the same map. All it needs is a caption that reads, for example: "The Spanish empire in yellow, the Portuguese empire in purple. During the Iberian Union (1580-1640) the two remained legally separate, but Spanish officials often exercised authority in Portugal and its empire." Now what's wrong with that? SamEV21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Portugal was no more seperate from Castile than Aragon. This has already been cited in the discussion above. And that's all I'm saying, I'm out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
We agree about Portugal, then. What I have read also says that the Portuguese Empire as well came increasingly under Spanish officials. I just want this reflected in the map, in a way that does not suggest that the Portuguese Empire was taken over by Spain. SamEV22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Both the text and the map should convey as much as possible. Those six decades are too important to leave out of the map, and sources exist that bear out everything I've said. I cannot be synthesis on our part to follow the procedure I've outlined. SamEV01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
How is this map synthesis, Red Hat of Pat?
Red and purple: Spanish empire; blue and light blue: Portuguese Empire, which came under partial Spanish control during 1580-1640
This is the kind of map I advocate for the introduction. The maps of the two empires can be verified reliably, both are clearly identifiable in this map, and the period and degree of Spanish control over the Portuguese is clearly stated and verifiable. So how is it synthesis? SamEV17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that's not synthesis. It's just not appropriate for the introduction to an article on the Spanish Empire. It's appropriate at the Iberian Union, and it's appropriate for the section of the Spanish Empire that deals with the union. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It is customary when writing about an empire to show it at its height, which Spain was during that time, so how is it inappropriate to put this map in the intro? SamEV01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
To repeat them (you can find the authors and texts above) -
"The overseas empires of both nations remained separate"
"Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire [the Portuguese]..."
"(Spain and) Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire"
"The two empires were kept administratively distinct"
"the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union"
My proposed edit won't claim otherwise, Pat. It's a fact that Portugal and its empire remained mostly independent. The edit I propose would indicate that; the caption can be worded so as to leave no doubt. But remember, at the same that the Portuguese Empire (PE, for short) was mostly independent of Spanish authorities, it was also substantially under Spanish authorities. So it's like a glass half-empty, half-full argument (or mostly one and partly the other, in this case). Rather than argue that it must only be shown as being one way, Pat, why not show it being both? SamEV03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The truth of the caption is neither here nor there, I'm arguing that it is not appropriate for the introduction. Right at the very top, a handful of Spaniards may have been able to tell the Portuguese what to do, but Portugal was left with "substantial control" over its own administration and its own overseas empire, and Spaniards were "prohibited from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire". Spain didn't even defend Portuguese colonies from Dutch attacks. What mark did Spain leave on the Portuguese Empire? Spaniards weren't allowed to live there and Castillian was not enforced or even adopted as a language. If Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Macau, Guinea-Bisseau, Cape Verde, Goa and Malacca spoke Spanish this discussion would be different, but the fact is that they do not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually Spain did defend Portuguese colonies, for instance:
Bahia, the chief town of Brazil, was captured in May 1624 but lost again the following year to a massive joint Spanish-Portuguese armada organized by Olivares. The fact that the Spanish Crown was put to enormous expense and inconvenience to recover Bahia was small comfort for most of the WIC's investors.
Pat, that degree of power/control that you acknowledge that Spaniards exercised is precisely why the PE must be in the map. You're demanding that only lands where Spanish control was absolute should be included. Does this standard apply to other empires? I hope Victor et al can address that stance you take. (They know the subject better than I do). And lastly: are you going to argue that Egypt was not part of the Roman Empire just because Egypt is not Latin-speaking or Greek-speaking today? SamEV16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Read the article on "the Spanish Empire" at Encarta [47]. In the introduction, it says "At its greatest extent in the Americas, Spanish territory stretched from Alaska through the western United States, Mexico, and Central America to southern Chile and Patagonia, and from the state of Georgia south to the Caribbean islands, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina. In Africa, at various times Spain occupied territories in the Western Sahara (present-day Morocco), and along the coast of what is now Equatorial Guinea, including the offshore island of Fernando Póo (now Bioko). In Asia, Spain ruled the Philippine Islands, which the Spanish named after King Philip II in 1542 . In Oceania, Spain held the Mariana Islands and later the Caroline Islands. Gibraltar, a rocky promontory connected to the Spanish mainland by a sandy isthmus, is a British dependency still claimed by Spain." No mention of Portuguese coloniesThe Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
So some sources don't mention it; others do. Portugal and its empire are variously described by others as having been "conquered", "united" to Spain, "annexed" by Spain, having "rebelled" against Spain in 1640, and so on. The Columbia Encyclopedia has this to say:
"Portugal, united with Spain by Philip II in 1580, rebelled and regained its independence in 1640."[48]
"Philip II of Spain, nephew of John III, validated his claims to the Portuguese throne (as Philip I) by force of arms, and the long "Spanish captivity" (1580-1640) began."
"Portugal was compelled to participate in Spain's wars against the Dutch and in the Thirty Years War. Finally in 1640 the Portuguese took advantage of the preoccupation of Philip IV with a rebellion in Catalonia to revolt and throw off the Spanish yoke."[49]
Here's a quote from Harvard's Roger Bigelow Merriman, a great historian of the Spanish Empire:
"From the cave of Covadonga to the annexation of Portugal and her dominions in 1580, which carried the Spanish Empire to its greatest territorial extent, the process of expansion is continuous."[50]
Again: "united", "rebelled", "compelled", "Spanish captivity"... To say the least, this is consistent not with an assertion of a co-equal relationship, but with at least a partial subordination of the PE to Spain. So as you can see, Pat, there are also sources that say the opposite of what you say. Wikipedia is about including all serious, important, verifiable viewpoints, and the viewpoint that the PE was (at least in part) under Spanish control fits the description. SamEV19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We've been through this umpteen times, and I'm not going to get into it again. The map is in the article, it is not as though I am suggesting it be stricken from the record. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The map is indeed in the article. That's not in dispute. The dispute is simple: you say it shouldn't be in the intro, I say it should. We seem at a standstill. What now? SamEV20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
On whether the current map should show the Portuguese colonies.
I have looked on wikipedia for wiki standard in similar question but we do not have standard. In article Kingdom of Great Britain we do not see Hanover which is in union with this kingdom. On other side maps are showing union between Hungary and Croatia in only 1 color (article and map), but in article Austro-Hungary there is one color for Austria and another for Hungary (map) . In my thinking this situation is best. To conclude I think that it will be good to show Portuguese colonies but in different color of Spain colonies. ---Rjecina 3:15, 10 November 2007
Which current map? If you mean a precise historical map depicting the period of the Iberian Union, yes, of course the Portuguese colonies should be represented alongside with the Spanish ones, albeit in different colours. However, if you mean the An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898), then they should not - this would amount to OR - what could prevent me or anyone else from making a map of the Portuguese Empire that included the Spanish colonies?!? You see it was, as it has been long repeated here, a personal union of the crows!! Even the present map is wrong! Portugal has always been since 1139 an independent country, even if for 60 years its kings where the same as the kings of the Spanish realms. Philip II of Spain (or Philip I of Portugal) was half Portuguese, spoke Portuguese fluently and even seriously considered moving his permanent royal seat to Lisbon! The first map in the article, as it stands, is quite POV, and the one you propose, adding the Portuguese colonies to the Spanish Empire (that even looks quite an imperialistic attitude...!), would be completely POV. The Ogre15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The current intro map was the result of a discussion and compromise between myself and two other contributors, in which much digging around was done, and is based on anything but OR, because it is based on maps in reputable sources. The Habsburgs are recognised as a Spanish dynasty, not Portuguese, despite having Portuguese blood (anyway, the royal houses of Europe were and are an incestuous lot - the current king of Spain is a French bourbon, and Queen Elizabeth can hardly be described as a full-blooded Englishwoman!) Portugal was indisputably a "Habsburg realm", and you can find lots of maps showing it as such. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt15:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Hello The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. I am not saying that Portugal was not an Habsburg realm! Of course it was. But this article is not about the Habsburg Empire! It is about the Spanish Empire! Do you seem my point? The Ogre13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Ogre, yes, I propose a map from the period 1580-1640 that shows the two empires in different colors. I showed the one in the article as a general example. Although if both are shown anachronously, this would be indicated, of course. SamEV05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
I see that first map of this article is compromise. In reality this map [51] is very POV, but text in article is trying to change that. Reason for my thinking that this map is POV is showing of Portugal but not Portugal colonies like part of Spanish empire. On other side map in part of article God is Spanish is good. We all agree that this map is OK ?? If we all agree with that we can use this map like intro map ??
In the end if we look historical maps they are always showing Empire peak, and Spanish Empire peak has been during union with Portugal. ---Rjecina 9:48, 10 November 2007
Can you please explain why [52] is "very POV"? The legend says "An anachronous map of the overseas Spanish Empire (1492-1898) in red, and the Spanish Habsburg realms in Europe (1516-1714) in orange." What is "POV" about that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
First I do not like anachronous maps. For me this is only created so that users can write how his home states has been great. We are having enough fighting about that in ex Yugoslavia. I support maps with clearly stated years (example: Spain Empire in 1600). On other side on this map in question I do not see Holy Roman Empire. Why ? In summary of this "POV" map is writen:
"An anachronous map of territories in Europe whose crowns were at some stage united with that of Spain (orange) and the Spanish overseas empire"
Between 1519 and 1556 Spanish crown has been united with that of Holy Roman Empire. Only because of Charles V decision crowns have been separated. In this article it is clearly writen: "As a result of the marriage politics of the Reyes Católicos, their grandson Charles inherited the Castilian empire in America, the Aragonese Empire in the Mediterranean (including a large portion of modern Italy), as well as the crown of the Holy Roman Empire and of the Low Countries and Franche-Comté."
Like you can see I have not writen anything about Portugal colonies which are not on map. ---Rjecina 11:46, 11 November 2007
Portugal and portuguese empire were under the kingdom of Philip II
You could check the spanish version of "Spanish Empire" and you can check the map, as well i wanted to add that Philip II governated in all those territoris from Portugeuse kingdom, and under the Spanish king, so that it means that was part of Spanish kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.43.120 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This just sounds as pure spanish propaganda...The spanish version of "Spanish Empire" is biased.Portugal was not under the spanish flag,the portuguese kept there own flag during that time.Philip governed Portugal and it's empire totaly separate from Spain.Johnn Dorian (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Portuguese empire was part from spanish empire
Why the map shows that Portugal belonged to spanish kingdom, and not the portugeuse empire? it has no sense that Portugal is and its empire not
Because Portugal and it´s empire were not part of the spanish empire.The portuguese empire was ruled only by portuguese and under the portuguese flag.Johnn Dorian (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
"Although Spain and Portugal were united in a "personal union" between 1580 and 1640, a period now referred to as the Iberian union, the crowns of Portugal and Spain were kept separate: Philip was Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Portugal remained a separate state[1] and the Portuguese empire was administered separately from the Spanish Empire"
The Habsburg Kings ruled Portugal as Kings of Portugal keeping all the autonomy of that nation.The Portuguese empire was ruled by the portuguese only.
This is similar to the rule of the House of Hanover in Great Britain, in wich King George of Hanover became also King of Great Britain, ruling both countries at the same time.Yet, we dont see anyone claiming that the British empire was part of the Kingdom of Hanover, do we?XPTO (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
193.146.228.51, your argument seems to be "what I say is true because the Spanish Wikipedia page says it". Can you not see that this is equivalent to someone stating that the Spanish page is wrong because of what is written on the English one? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that you can't compare the union between Hannover and England to the unions that made up the Spanish empire. The fact is historians recognize a Spanish empire in this period, and if you were to discount unions of crowns it wouldn't exist at all until after the war of Spanish succession. Also I'd like it if Castile were seperated from Aragon in the map, as it is now it is very incorrect. Also northern Taiwan and the spice islands should be included.
The opening line clearly states that the Spanish Empire 'was the largest in history'- which is not true. Would it not be prudent to change this piece of inaccurate information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.250.218 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've attempted to rectify this error twice, however 82.186.100.114 seemed adamant that the Spanish Empire was the largest in history, despite the fact that it isn't and a reference was added to support this.--82.3.144.97 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes,but that is not true.Portugal and its empire were under the Spanish sovereign and therefore under Spanish rule, that is why Portugel rebelled in 1640 and Spain did not rebel. Portugal rebelled against Spain for some reason. We have quite a mistake here. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
If you read the talk above, you will see that this was discussed in great detail. Please read it, and note the subject matter relates to what verifiable sources say about this, not contributors' own unsourced original research, which is what your argument is. If you can provide sources that explicitly back your claim that a map of the "Spanish Empire" should show Portuguese colonies, post them here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
That is a mistake. Portugal and its Empire were under Spanish rule until 1640, when Portugal rebelled against Spain.You just have to see basic books about the history of Spain. But who cares, this is Wikipedia. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Don't pay attention to Hat, he is clearly biased. He refuses to acknowledge the Spanish presence in Taiwan and the Spice Islands, and the border between Castile and Aragon (which as I have verified with more than one citation had the same status of autonomy as Portugal). But it's just as you say, it's Wikipedia so don't make a big deal of it, no one really takes this site seriously.~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and this Hat happens to be a Portuguese. What a coincidence! Anyway, have no time right now. When I have time I will provide on-line sources to prove what any beginner in Spanish history knows, that Portugal and of course its colonies were part of the Spanish empire from 1580 to 1640, when the Portuguese successfully rebelled agaisnt Spain just after another rebellion had taken place in Catalonia with the same purpose. Having to prove these basic things makes one think what a serious academic place this is. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Yawn. Wikipedia is founded on verifiability, not the personal views of its editors, no matter how convinced they are of their truth. Please read the sources I posted above. [53] Note that my arguments are based on verifiable sources, not ad hominem attacks like "he is biased" or "he is Portuguese" (I'm not, incidentally). Wikipedia is taken seriously, and if you want to be as contributors, you should start being more mature. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Ad hominem's like the ones you threw at me during our previous discussion here?
I have already cited various works backing the Spanish presence in Taiwan and the Spice Islands. I'll show some again this instance, probably only to be ignored yet again.
The Dutch and Spaniards established more lasting settlements, the Dutch at An-p'ing in southwestern Taiwan in 1624, the Spaniards in 1626 at Chi-lung in the north. Until 1646, when the Dutch seized the Spanish settlements, northern Taiwan was under Spanish domination, the south under Dutch control.
Britannica Online Academic Edition
The Spanish, not to be outdone by the Dutch, sent a fleet north from Manila, drove out the Japanese pirates, and established forts and a mission at Keelung and at Tamsui. The Dutch attempted to evict them, and in 1642 their second expedition eliminated the Spanish interests.
George H. Kerr, Far Eastern Survey, Institute of Pacific Relations.
Thus, after the Dutch had seized the main Spice Islands in 1605, the Spanish, based on the Philippines, hit back and recaptured Tidore and part of Ternate.
Peter Brightwell, The English Historical Review, Oxford University Press
Also I happened on something else in that article, which I am not going to discuss now, but I will include it none-the-less:
In 1580, after seizing the opportunity provided by a disputed succession, Spain also acquired the Portuguese monarchy and the overseas empire which went with it. This gave Spain an Atlantic seaboard much more extensive than the one she had previously possessed; and the importance of this acquisition in strategic terms can best be expressed by noting that the provisional decision to send the Armada against England was taken soon after Philip got back from Portugal; and that much of the preparatory work was done at Lisbon, whence the Armada eventually sallied.
I have more sources with similar quotes in a document I have been saving, but as I said I wont get into that now.
The first detachment formed the nucleus of the strong expedition which Don Pedro de Acuña, Governor of the Philippines, directed from Manila against the Moluccas in the spring of 1606. There the Dutch fort on Tidore and the western half of Ternate were recaptured by the Spanish.
Engel Sluiter, The Pacific Historical Review, University of California Press.
I'm not discussing that subject now, as I have pointed out in that post. I'm merely pointing out the territories which are missing (as I have verified earlier). I requested you to add them months ago.
~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it will take 4 days till I can upload the map. Unless of course you would be so kind as to upload it yourself. I provided a link to the image above long ago, so it is there if you choose to do so.
65.218.58.130 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSTool (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you have provided verifieble sources to include the Portuguese colonies in the Spanish empire, something I fiond incredible that some people want to ignore. So please, add those territories to the anachronous map. Otherwise it has a huge mistake. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The Portuguese empire must not be included in the Spanish Empire because it was never a part of it. It was only a personal union, the portuguese remained formally independent as stipulated at the Cortes of Tomar in 1581, in which King Philip promessed to rule the portuguese and their empire totally separate from the spanish. In fact, it would be the later attempts by king Philip IV to break the rules of the union stipulated at the Cortes of Tomar that will cause the revolution of 1640. Johnn Dorian (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you do realize the same applies to the Crown of Aragón (Cataluña, Aragón, Valencia) and its empire (Sicily, Baleares, Naples, etc.). Remember, Cataluña also rebelled in 1640 and almost succeeded. In Hapsburg times there is no Spanish Empire properly, rather a Spanish Hapsburgs Empire. --Victor12 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. According to that argument we could just as well justify not including the Spanish empire of the Hapsburgs at all, since it applied to all of its territories. Going back and looking at the previous discussion we had months ago, we have 2 sources explicitly stating that Portugal and its colonies were a part of it. You guys however have that same argument over and over. In fact, among the sources I have said I accumulated, I have one that states Spanish garrisons were present in Brazil (and if I recall correctly, the author was Portuguese or Brazilian). Anyways, right now I am very busy with finals. But perhaps during June I might have some time to spare for this. But I can tell you right now I have 14 sources.
And by the way, as Johnn Dorian says, even if you were to use that argument, Philip II's successor's didn't adhere to his policies towards Portugal at all. So even then you could say that argument is void when applied to the end of this period.
And I quote from Encyclopedia Britannica Academic Edition:
Portuguese resentment against Spanish rule was exacerbated by the failure of these kings to visit Portugal, the appointment of Spaniards to Portuguese offices, the loss of trade as a consequence of Spain's foreign wars, and the levying of taxation to sustain these wars.65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a discussion about a map, and so there is only one type of "evidence" which will really settle the issue: maps. Given that I have provided maps of three authors that do not show Portuguese colonies during this time as Spanish [54], the onus is now on you to provide some maps that do. If you can, then at best all we have demonstrated is that there is a divergence of opinion in academia. In that case, the present state of the article is the best compromise, because the first map shows colonies that are unarguably Spanish, and later on in the article there is a map of the colonies of the Iberian Union. Another option could be a non-anachronous map of the Spanish Empire from a specific year outside of the period 1580-1640. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
If I find a source that explicitly states Portugal and its colonies were part of it, that is just as valid a source. Who are you to say what type of source is required?
Red I suggest a better compromise that I would agree with. Have two maps, one under the Bourbons and one under the Hapsburgs. The Hapsburg map should clearly show the entities that made up the Spanish Hapsburg empire as autonomous, with different colors, including most importantly the crowns of Castile, Aragon, and Portugal.
And if you don't agree with this, at least put up just the map of the empire at its height under the Bourbons (Charles III to be exact) until the issue is resolved (which will likely be never). Even the article itself states there is a great amount of debate as to what Hapsburg territories are to be included.
65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Who am I? Well, I'm a fellow editor that you are trying to convince am wrong. I would have thought that, if your view is widely held in academia, it should be pretty straightforward to find maps that back up your view, like I have done for mine. Most history books have maps, after all. If you can't find any, it leaves you in a precarious position, both in terms of convincing me, and in terms of convincing other, neutral parties, should you decide to open it up for further comment. Thus far, I do not see the need for a compromise if you can't produce any maps that show Portuguese colonies as Spanish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Sir I have looked at many books and it is in fact very hard to find a map specifically dated to this period. Furthermore, your maps aren't as impressive as you make them sound. At least one of your maps (I believe the one from the Penguin Atlas of Modern History) in fact suggests that the map could show Portuguese colonies, and thus could be either way. Another of yours spans much more than the period of union (1600-1700), and then you have contemporary maps of Brazil labelled as Portuguese, which isn't exactly very useful because it just shows Brazil. What if those same cartographers mapped Mexico or Peru as Castillian? Then it wouldn't contradict my point at all.
65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the map in question clearly demarcates the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the year 1600. The footnotes say that it could show otherwise, but the author chose not to do so. We can also look at the Penguin Atlas of World History, which says that the Empire was a joint one, the Spanish-Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, there you go. One of them states having Portugal on the map is also correct, and the other shows Portugal and Spain as one political entity.
65.218.58.130 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
This discussion creeps up from time to time. The Portuguese and Spanish Empire were in a personal union, as was stated, the Portuguese Empire was not a part of the Spanish Empire, but, yes, due to the Iberian Union (and there is already a map for that) there were relations between them (and in fact there were also Portuguese an Spanish joint forces in many places). One can speak of a Spanish-Portuguese Empire for that period, but not of the Portuguese one being part of the Spanish one! This Spanish-centered POV creeps everywhere (look at Talk:Spanish Language and the discussion about some maps that try to make the USA, Canada, Morocco, Western Sahara, the Falklands!!, parts of Brazil, the Philippines, etc., somehow Spanish speaking nations!). If a map, against all credible sources and historical facts, pushes this highly biased POV, then I will be forced to make a map of the Portuguese Empire that includes the Spanish colonies between 1580-1640!!!!!!!! The Ogre (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The whole of the "Spanish Empire" during the Hapsburg era was a personal union, certainly all of its European possessions and even the colonies in the Americas were under the jurisdiction of the Crown of Castilla not of any "Spanish crown". Portugal is not a special case. --Victor12 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it is, because, first of all, Portugal was not under the crown of Castile, but was another kingdom of the Habsburgs (with the same authonomy as Castile, or Aragon, for that matter), and, secondly, because, no other of the Habsburgs' kingdoms (excepting Castile), possesed a Global Empire (and one that maintained itself after the dinastic breakup of 1640)!! The Ogre (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, caro amigo Victor12, you should read the Spanish article es:Imperio Hispano-Portugués, where it is clearly stated:
Felipe de España terminó siendo reconocido como rey de Portugal en las Cortes de Tomar de 1581. Mientras tanto, la idea de perder la independencia dio lugar a una revolución liderada por el Prior de Crato que llegó a proclamarse rey en 1580 y gobernó hasta 1583 en la isla Terceira de las Azores. El Prior de Crato terminaría derrotado debido principalmente al apoyo a Felipe de la burguesía y de la nobleza tradicional.
Para conseguir tales apoyos, Felipe se comprometió a mantener y respetar los fueros, costumbres y privilegios de los portugueses. Lo mismo sucedería con los que ocuparan los cargos de la administración central y local, así como con los efectivos de las guarniciones y de las flotas de Guinea y de la India. En las cortes estuvieron presentes todos los procuradores de las villas y ciudades portuguesas, a excepción de las de los de las Azores, fieles al rival pretendiente al trono derrotado por Felipe II, el Prior de Crato.
Este fue el principio de la unión personal que, sin grandes alteraciones, dominaría hasta cerca de 1620 (...).
(...)
Los reinados de Felipe I y Felipe II de Portugal fueron relativamente pacíficos principalmente porque hubo poca interferencia española en los asuntos de Portugal, que seguía bajo la administración de gobiernos portugueses. A partir de 1630, ya en el reinado de Felipe III de Portugal, la situación tendió a una mayor intervención española y a un descontento creciente. Las numerosas guerras en las que España se vio envuelta, por ejemplo contra las Provincias Unidas (Guerra de los Ochenta Años) y contra Inglaterra, habían costado vidas portuguesas y oportunidades comerciales. Dos revueltas portuguesas habidas en 1634 y 1637 no llegaron a tener proporciones peligrosas, pero en 1640 el poder militar español se vio reducido debido a la guerra con Francia y la sublevación de Cataluña.
La gota que colmó el vaso fue la intención del Conde-Duque de Olivares en 1640 de usar tropas portuguesas contra los catalanes que se habían declarado súbditos del rey de Francia. El Cardenal Richelieu, mediante sus agentes en Lisboa, halló un líder en Juan II, Duque de Braganza, nieto de Catalina de Portugal. Aprovechándose de la falta de popularidad de la gobernadora Margarita de Saboya, Duquesa de Mantua, y de su secretario de estado Miguel de Vasconcelos, los líderes separatistas portugueses dirigieron una conspiración el 1 de diciembre de 1640. Vasconcelos, que sería defenestrado, fue prácticamente la única víctima. El 15 de diciembre de 1640 el Duque de Braganza fue aclamado rey como Juan IV, pero prudentemente se negó a ser coronado, consagrando la corona portuguesa a la Virgen María.
So dont give any type of distorted view about the real situation as it is described and analised and all credible academic sources! Vale?!? The Ogre (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I fail to see your point. You said that Portugal was not under the crown of Castile, but was another kingdom of the Habsburgs (with the same authonomy as Castile, or Aragon, for that matter). That was exactly my point. The whole Spanish Hapsburg monarchy was composed of several independent kingdoms under the same king. It was only under the Bourbons that the Empire was unified. So, Portugal was just another kingdom under the sovereignty of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Do we agree on that? --Victor12 (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
No. Portugal was just another kingdom under the Portuguese Habsburgs! And if the Spanish colonies were under the Crown of Castile, the colonies of Portugal were under the Crown of... Portugal! The Empire, was a Spanish-Portuguese Empire, not a Spanish one that devoured the Portuguese one. The Ogre (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Referencing a stubby article with no sources whatsoever is not a very good way to argue for your point. All your Portuguese Hapsburg were born in Castile. As for Portuguese colonies, yes they were under the crown of Portugal in the same way as Spanish colonies in the Americas were under the crown of Castile and Spanish possessions in the Mediterranean Sea under the Crown of Aragon. That is precisely my point, this article deals with a branch of the Hapsburg dynasty centered in what is now Spain. They ruled over several kingdoms, including at one time Portugal. If there's an empire at that time and place it is a Hapsburg Empire, not a Spanish or a Portuguese one. --Victor12 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure but we need to disambiguate between the Austrian branch of the Hapsburgs and the Iberian/Spanish one. Maybe Hispanic Hapsburg Empire or something like that. --Victor12 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
They were not the "Portuguese" Hapsburgs. The Hapsburg branch was split into two: one based in Vienna and the other based in Madrid. Portugal was a territory of this second branch. What Victor says is true, the personal union argument isn't valid since Aragon was also in personal union (as well as technically all the other states such as Naples, Milan, Luxembourg etc.). I quote Encyclopaedia Britannica Academic Edition:
The union of the Crowns of Aragon and Castile therefore led to neither a political and institutional union nor to an economic integration of the Iberian Peninsula.
This notion of "Spain" in the modern sense did not occur till the Bourbons centralized the government after the War of Spanish Succession. The point me and Victor are making revolves around this. The fact that "Spain" and the "Spanish Empire" in this time were simply the Spanish Hapsburgs themselves and their personal empire. Just like at this time one would refer to the other Hapsburg branch as "Austria". 65.218.58.130 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) - Ed
Yeah... Come on! Who are you kiding! Why don't you paint the world in the colours of the Spanish Empire! Have you read the Spanish text above? The Ogre (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Ogger,but your position is pure sophism. Because you are Portuguese you think the Portuguese case is special. Just pure sophism, as said. According to you Spain does not exist even now, taking into account the deep autonomy of oall Spanish regions that in some cases go beyond Federalism.Come on! Will you also say the sameabout Hollad, and Belgiumor most of Italy at the time? They were all also special cases, all are special cases, not just Portugal and its empire. Leave your Portuguese nationalism aside and be objective, for Gods`sake. anyway, thius si Wiki, with a lot of personal issues and the Anglo establishment with their continuous manipulation of history in relation to the Spànish.
By the way, why do not you erase also Portugal? Why do not you erase the entire Spanish empire. I am sure you can cherry pick links in the Net for any purpose. If you keep repeating the same lies, you know, as they say, they become true. How some people hate the real extent of the Spanish empire! But that is history folks, no matter what the century old envy agaisnt Spain tries again and again with their Anglo propagandists and numerous acolytes. And do not complain of my personal attackts. Anyone who knows the inside of European history and the century old Anglo, Portuguese, Dutch etc propaganda (due to the magnitude of the empire for cuenturies) knows too well how an article like this is pure propaganda again in the hands of said people. Newcomer.
Well, keep a cool head Newcomer. You may be right but that is no way ahead. I think the map must include the Portuguese colonies, stating that it was the result of a personal union 1580-1640 or explaining it somehow. But right now, to include only Portugal but not its dependent territories is an obvious contradiction that should be solved. But I leave you alone here. Do as you wish. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The present map with its distinction between the Habsburg Realms (which included Portugal) and the overseas Spanish Empire (which did not include Portuguese colonies) is perfectly consistent with maps that can be found in texts. Habsburg Realm != Colony. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm Portuguese and therefore I may be biased. Anyway, for any Wikipedia reader, (1) it should be clear from the map that the Spanish Habsburgs once ruled over Portugal (and its colonies) and (2) that the Portuguese empire was not built under the Spanish nor remained with Spain after the 1640 rebellion in mainland Portugal. I suggest that the Portuguese colonies and trading posts appear on this map with a different colour and an appropriate caption. Velho (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The caption could be: "An anachronous map of the overseas territories of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898) in red, and, in orange, the Spanish Habsburg realms in Europe (1516-1714), including Portuguese colonies." Velho (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I still say the best result is to have TWO maps: one under the Bourbons and another under the Hapsburgs. The Spanish Hapsburg map should clearly have all the crowns that made up their empire (Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Naples, etc) in different colors. Red, having Spanish Hapsburg realms in orange would be pointless because the entire map would be orange.
First of all, 65.218.58.130, it is not with ad hominem reasonings that you will make your point. Secondly, I'm not a new comer - maybe you are, since we don't know who you are 'cause you're not a registered user. Thirdly I'm not at all nationalistic and am, even, quite opposed to such positions. Fourthly, I have nothing against Spain! Quite the contrary, in fact. I'm even a member of Wiki Project Spain. And my aim in wikipedia is also to contribute to the improvement of articles about Iberia (that includes trying to improve articles about Spain), without them failing into typical anglo bias. Of course Spain exist, man! And to me, it seem you're the one with a nationalistic POV. But let's depart from personal comments. The question here is if Portugal or the Portuguese Empire should be present in an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire. I believe, with reason, it should not. And you still haven't found or given any credile source saying so. Now, if you want to make non-anachronistic maps, such as the one already in the article representing the Spanish-Portuguese Empire during the Iberion Union under the Habsburgs, that is quite well (if, of course, the different territories are marked in different colours refering to different administrative and political structures)! But, in an anachronistic map that bundles toghether all the Spanish colonies of all times, including the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640 is clearly a way to artificially enhance the supposed "might and glory" of the Spanish Empire! When was Brazil ever Spanish, or Angola, or Mozambique, or India, or Timor?!? Even during the Iberian Union they were refered to in Spain as "las colonias portuguesas"! If the objective is to make historical maps (giving the exact situation in precise dates), of course the Habsburg realms MUST include Portugal and its colonies. If the objective is to make a map that shows all the Spanish colonies in any given time, then including the colonies of a country that was in a personal union with the others Spanish crowns for just 60 years, a country that was not dependent on those other crows (in fact, problems in the Union only began after 1620, when the king, contrary to what had been established, began centralizing power in Madrid, appointing Castilian officials in the Portuguese administration, and conscripting Portuguese armies to fight in the defense of Castilian interests), and that maintained an overall authonomy in the administration of its empire, an empire, mind you, that if included in the Spanish one would almost double the areas ruled, then, I was saying, that amounts to trying a fictional expansion of the Spanish Empire. And yes, in this aspect, Portugal is different from Aragon, because it had a true global empire, not some small possessions in the Mediterranean. This in fact was the reason that permited Portugal to remain separated from the Union after 1640 - because of the backup of the Empire and the alliance with England, "paid" for with a huge chunck of India (Bombay). For all this reasons, I am also against the present map, that mixes up to completely different logics (the Spanish Empire and the Habsburg realms) - but the present make up was the result of huge discussions and a relative consensus was reached, and so I abided. But what you and others are trying to do has no fundament in reality as it is presented in respectable academic scholarship. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we should use non-anachronous maps as proposed above. One for the Hapsburgs (1580 might be a good year) and one for the Bourbons (maybe 1782, after the recapture of Menorca). --Victor12 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
But don't we already have a non-anachronous map represeting the Habsburgs realms during the Iberion Union? And I do believe an anachronous map should also be present in the article, as it is done in all othe "empire" articles. But without the Portuguese possessions that can only be present in a non-anachronous map of the period 1580-1640. The Ogre (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ogre I didn't even respond to what you said. That was someone else. And you kind of flew off the handle yourself with the post you made in response to mine, so no complaints there. I will reply to your latest post when I have time (right now I must go to a class).
65.218.58.130 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I am truly sorry 65.218.58.130!! I confused you with 62.175.249.250 (from Mérida, in Spain). That's the problem with IP's... My apologies! The Ogre (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The Ogre is right in that there is already a map showing the realms and colonies during the Iberian Union! I didn't notice that before. I think that makes this whole discussion a bit pointless... Let me make a new suggestion: change the order the maps. Put the map with the Iberian Union at the beginning of the article and the anachronous map where the other one presently is. Velho (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, first of all Ogre, you said Spain existed in its modern sense at this time. That is absolutely false. I have already proved that Aragon was in the same situation as Portugal (numerous times). The map you guys point to is very POV since it gives Portugal special treatment, it recognizes its autonomy and has no respect for the autonomy of Aragon or any of the other kingdoms in the Spanish Hapsburg domain. The map would be correct if it outlined these appropriately in the legend, or if the entire map was labeled with one color, which I'm sure you wouldn't want (obviously). You say that Aragon must not be included because it didn't have an overseas empire? That isn't a valid point I am afraid.
One thing is clear gentlemen, we can't have an anachronistic map of both empires because of how different they were. We need two, as I have said, because Spain underwent a drastic political and administrative change under the Bourbons.
May I ask Ogre why you are against having one map labeled as the empire of the Spanish Hapsburgs which clearly distinguishes the autonomy of all the crowns which composed it?
65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
You misunderstood me or I did not exlain myself in the correct manner - I know Spain did not exist in the modern sense in that era (I was replying to the statemente that said I supposedly thought Spain doesn't even exist today!), and I have nothing against an historic non-anachronous map depicting the Habsburg realms worldwide that shows in different colours all the different authonomous crowns and their respective possessions (thus including Aragon). The Ogre (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, 65.218.58.130, fair as I'm trying to be, there is a difference between the two states that signed the Tordesillas treaty and any other entities without significant overseas domains, especially because these two empires existed before and continued existing after a 60-year union. If this isn't a difference for the purposes of this article, I don't know what could be! Why don't we start with the map showing the territories of the Iberian Union? Velho (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
May I ask what is fair about neglecting a historical fact, such as the autonomy of a territory? If Portugal is shown in a seperate color, there is no reason Aragon shouldn't. Tell me what is unreasonable about that?
65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
May I ask that you first comment on my suggestion? The only drawback I see is having to create a new map. One under the Bourbons, which wouldn't be hard to create (just erase the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Duchy of Milan, etc. from one of the maps already uploaded). The Spanish Hapsburg map could be the current "Iberian Union" map, with Aragon in a seperate color, the other European crowns in other colors, northern Taiwan added under Castile, include the Spice Islands as governed by both Portugal and Castile (Ceuta as well, but it is too small to single out). I only have one problem with this approach, and that is the status of the smaller European states, namely Luxembourg and the Franche-Comté.
65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think the stark differences warrant two seperate maps? Each one can be anachronistic for their respective timeframes. Unless you can think of a way to incorporate both in the same map. For example the one now has Spain in orange, which is labeled as being a Hapsburg territory only (quite ridiculous). Not to mention the border with Aragon isn't included. On the other hand, maybe we could have Spain in red without distinguishing Aragon and Castile, but have a caption stating how Aragon and Castile were unified under the centralizing reforms of the Bourbons. Then have the remaining Spanish Hapsburg territories with a caption stating they were lost by 1714 or before then.
65.218.58.130 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm tired and have to go to sleep, so I won't today, but there is aways the option of an animated gif showing the historical evolution of the empire - all the complexities could be present (different colours, separations, unions, etc.)! See you all tomorrow. The Ogre (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think animations are not good for encyclopaedia articles. They are visually distracting when you are trying to read, and anyway they are verging on useless because you can't pause them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I think my solution is simpler, but if you guys want a go at an animation go ahead. It will be very hard though, a lot of territorial changes occurred. It would be a large file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSTool (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I am very opposed to an animated map. It does not solve the problem of Portuguese colonies, and visually distracting for the reader. An anachronistic map is just the union of all the frames of an animated map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
And what do you think of my solution: adding the colonies in orange, and providing a caption explaining how Castile and Aragon were unified under the centralizing reforms of the Bourbons in 1716. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSTool (talk • contribs) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Portuguese colonies while under the Spanish Hapsburgs, so basicaly add the blue of the Iberian Union map into this map, but in orange. Then make Spain red, but provide a caption explaining the unification of Castile and Aragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Completely against that, because that goes against all that's been said and all the sources provided by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick above. The Ogre (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Adding it in orange would be basically the same map we have now...it would still say it is a Spanish Hapsburg realm, except it would actually include the entire realm and not just part of it. Completely reasonable and the best solution at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The European Habsburg realms are an entirely different kettle of fish to the overseas colonies. Conflating them and the colonies of Portugal would be a total misrepresentation of history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So you're saying Portugal was a seperate nation from its colonies? If Philip II was king of Portugal, did his sovereignty not extend to his kingdom's colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
So please continue to use it then! Instead of contributing as an anonymous user and not even signing your posts. Regarding your proposed map, discussions based around if this then that or if that then this are irrelevant at Wikipedia. All that matters is that contributions are verifiable. If you can provide a map drawn the way you are proposing to draw this one, then you have the basis for a discussion. If you cannot, then this is original research on your part. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I have provided maps with Portugal which is the same thing. There's a point to which your original research claims are completely unreasonable.
PSTool (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact it isn't original research at all. All I need to verify, to add in Portuguese colonies in orange, is that the Crown of Portugal was indeed a Spanish Hapsburg realm. No where does it say the source must be a map. In fact, many of these anachronistic maps wouldn't be found in published sources. Does that mean that all these maps are original research? Again, you're being completely unreasonable.PSTool (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Look, the bottom line is this: if you are suggesting Portuguese colonies should be present on the headline map of the Spanish Empire then produce maps that show this. The present red/orange distinction is actually really Europe vs the overseas colonies. Note "in Europe" and "overseas" in the legend. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't change the fact that all of Portugal falls into the category of Spanish Hapsburg realm. But fine, give me a couple of months and I'll bring you such maps.
When all is said and done, I believe the article should stay as it is, with the present maps (and of course one might add the caption The Red Hat proposed). The Ogre (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Caption Changed
I have added the statement to the legend that the colonies of Portugal are not shown on the map, without any claim that they were ever Spanish. The Portuguese Empire spanned 1415-1999, not 1415-1580 and 1640-1999. It did not cease to exist from 1580-1640. [55][56] Histories of Brazil, Goa or Macau do not say that they were "Spanish" colonies for eighty years or that they changed hands from Portugal to Spain to Portugal in the way that Québec or Mauritius were French colonies and passed from French to British hands (and where, incidentally, they still speak the language of their ex-colonial masters). History is not going to be rewritten and readers confused. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
No, it didn't cease to exist. But it was a Spanish Hapsburg realm, just like the Burgundian territories, the Duchy of Milan, and Aragon and Castile themselves. What you have on this map is hypocritical, and is is giving Portugal special treatment. Don't tell me I'm trying to rewrite history, what a nerve. Learn to respect other's arguments. I will look for those maps, and this time I will search Spanish sources as well.
PSTool (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I do have an issue shading half of Taiwan as Spanish, when they had two forts and didn't even maintain a presence for twenty years. It's like shading half of Kyushu green on the Dutch Empire map because they had a fort at Deshima or Indonesia pink on the British Empire map because Britain administered the Dutch East Indies for five years during the Napoleonic War. Based on your strict logic, it should be, but that is not what historians do. (Wait, that Dutch Empire map is ridiculous too - it has half the coastal region of Iran shaded as Dutch. Ridiculous. Time for more corrections....) Anyway, if you want to change the shading of Taiwan to two dots to represent the location of the two forts, I would not object. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
ps I would also be happy with the removal of Portugal, and changing the legend to say ("Not shown: Portugal and its empire during the time of the Iberian Union"). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Except you couldn't do that because of the maps I provided showing Portugal in that manner. And as for Taiwan, the Dutch map is like that also. And it isn't all of northern Taiwan, just the tip. I don't see you complaining about the "Iberian Union" map showing all of western India as Portuguese, plus large swathes of African coastline. EDIT: Okay, it is all of northern Taiwan. But again, doesn't change what I said about those other maps.
PSTool (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Iberian Union and Dutch maps are wrong. But two (or three) wrongs don't make a right, do they? Are you suggesting that in order to argue about this map, I have to first correct every single other map in Wikipedia? Regarding Portugal, you are the one declaring "hypocrisy" of the current map, not me, I was just proposing a compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
What is hypocritical is to include every Spanish Hapsburg realm but Portugal (well, the entirety of it). And if you are willing to change those maps, then I will agree to make the changes you suggest. I would also like to raise another issue: the Portuguese Empire map includes "claims' and "areas of influence", while those for the map of the Spanish Empire were removed (Pacific Northwest, parts of Brazil). In fact if you were to go by claims you could include a lot of territories. Frankly I think they shouldn't be included.
PSTool (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think your new map is OK, but are you sure the location of the Taiwan dot is accurate - what is your source for it? I agree about not drawing areas that were claimed but not settled or "areas of influence" - technically, one could have coloured half the world Spanish and half Portuguese after Tordesillas, and a lot of post-independence South America British - but you need to raise that on the Portuguese Empire page. Also I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to "bargain" with me? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I was just pointing out that other maps had glaring defects (while we were on the subject), which were much more important than something so minor as northern Taiwan being in red. I'm not trying to bargain anything. As for the sources, I listed a ton a few days ago. They even have a museum in Taiwan dedicated to one of them, and a cape in the vicinity has a Spanish name as a legacy to their presence in the area.PSTool (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
That personal site is not a credible academic source, and you map just seems like another attempt to enhance the areas under control of a specific empire. The Ogre (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Map again
The map now makes reference to the Iberian Union, instead of inlcluding directly those territories. Read the Iberian Union article. If that is not Portuguese-centric I do not know a thing. I think this part of the article is being ruined by some users with a lot of Portuguse propaganda in their minds. No wonder that with a few more contributions Spain is going to end up having been a colony of Portugal. Risible. All risible. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Please let's get it started. I will do an example with Portugal, Castille and Aragon.
Ok 3 kingdoms separated. Now call Castille+Aragon Spain. Doesn't we have Portugal AND Spain? So, obvioulsy, we have a Portuguese Empire (Portugal) and a Spanish Empire (Castille+Aragon). I don't know exactly when the definition of Spain being Castille+Aragon was "established" (probably around Charles I of Spain), as before that Spain meant the same as Iberia, but even if in the times of the Iberian Union they used "Spanish Empire" in the same meaning as we use "Iberian Empire" (I think they did) we can't use now Spanish Empire for that "Iberian Empire" because it now have a different meaning, for the Spanish Empire now we are reffering to the Empire of "modern Spain". Anyway an Iberian Empire did not exist because the Portuguese and Castillian (only Castille and its colonies) Empire were administrated in an independent way.Câmara (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Map one more time
The map is not correct:
1) In case of showing only the strictly CASTILLE´s possesions, it´s recommended to show the real viceroyalty of Peru, wich was over the most part of the actual Brazil during the Spanish Empire
"El gobierno mediante Consejos instaurado por su padre seguía siendo la columna vertebral de su manera de dirigir el estado. El más importante era el Consejo de Estado del cual el rey era el presidente. El rey se comunicaba con sus Consejos principalmente mediante la consulta, un documento con la opinión del Consejo sobre un tema solicitado por el rey. Asimismo existían seis Consejos regionales: el de Castilla, de Aragón, de Portugal, de Indias, de Italia y de Países Bajos y ejercían labores legislativas, judiciales y ejecutivas"
-> GOOGLE TRANSLATION (sorry, no time)
"The government through councils established by his father remained the backbone of his way to lead the state. The most important was the State Council which the king was the president. The king was communicated with their Councils mainly through consultation, a document with the Council's view on a topic requested by the king. Also there were six regional councils: that of Castile, Aragon, Portugal, India, Italy and Netherlands and efforts exerted legislative, judicial and executive."
(POLITIC AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRATION)
and
"Felipe II también gustaba de contar con la opinión de un grupo selecto de consejeros, formado por el catalán Luis de Requesens, el castellano duque de Alba, el vasco Juan de Idiáquez, el cardenal borgoñés Antonio Perrenot de Granvela y los portugueses Ruy Gómez de Silva y Cristóbal de Moura repartidos por diferentes oficinas o siendo miembros del Consejo de Estado."
-> GOOGLE TRANSLATION (sorry, no time)
"Philip II also liked to have the opinion of a select group of advisers, consisting of the Catalan Luis de Requesens, the Castilian Duke of Alba, basque Juan de Idiaquez, Cardinal borgoñés Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle and the Portuguese Ruy Gomez de Silva and Cristobal de Moura spread by different offices or being members of the State Council. "
"La flota española estaba mandada por el gran marino militar Álvaro de Bazán, Marqués de Santa Cruz y Capitán General de las Galeras de España. Mandaba dos galeones del rey, 10 naos guipuzcoanas, ocho portuguesas y castellanas, 10 urcas flamencas y una levantisca, así como cinco pataches. Pero dos de las urcas desaparecieron en la noche del 24 de julio, tres naves se demoraron en Lisboa, la levantisca llegó tarde y uno de los pataches había sido apresado, por lo que, en el momento del combate, sólo tenía 25 bajeles de guerra.
El mando de la flota francesa lo tenía Felipe Strozzi, hijo de Pedro Strozzi, Mariscal de Francia, y le secundaba Charles de Brisac, Conde de Brisac, también hijo de Mariscal de Francia. Se encontraba en ella D. Francisco de Portugal, conde de Vinioso. Llevaban 60 navíos con 6.000 a 7.000 infantes y arbolaban la bandera blanca con la flor de lis dorada.
..En marzo de 1582 se refuerza la isla de San Miguel con cuatro naos guipuzcoanas que lleva Rui Díaz de Mendoza, y quedan a cargo del almirante portugués Pedro Peijoto de Silva, que estaba allí con dos galeones y tres carabelas.
En mayo nueve naos francesas atacan San Miguel. El ataque es rechazado por las naos guipuzcoanas, que tuvieron 20 muertos..
..Por parte de los atacantes, los tercios del Imperio español estaban compuestos por soldados reclutados en todos los dominios de los Habsburgo, españoles y portugueses de la Unión Ibérica, italianos, alemanes, valones, suizos, borgoñones, flamencos leales a España.."
-> GOOGLE TRANSLATION (sorry, no time)
"The Spanish fleet was commissioned by the large marine military Alvaro de Bazan, Marquis of Santa Cruz and Captain-General of the Galeras Spain. Mandar two galleons of the king, 10 naos guipuzcoanas, eight Portuguese and Spanish, 10 urcas Flemish and a levantisca, as well as five Patache. But two of the urcas disappeared on the night of July 24, three ships were delayed in Lisbon, levantisca arrived late and one of the Patache had been arrested, so that at the time of combat, only had 25 bajel war.
The command of the French fleet was what Philip Strozzi, son of Peter Strozzi, Marshal of France, and he supported Charles de Brisac, Conde de Brisac, also son of Marshal of France. He was in it D. Francisco de Portugal, Count of Vinioso. Llevaban 60 ships with 6,000 to 7,000 infants and trees the white flag with golden fleur-de-lis.
.. In March 1582 reinforces the island of San Miguel with four naos guipuzcoanas leading Rui Diaz de Mendoza, and left by the Portuguese admiral Peijoto Pedro de Silva, who was there with two galleons and three caravels.
In May naos nine French attack San Miguel. The attack was repulsed by the naos guipuzcoanas, who had 20 deaths ..
.. On the part of the attackers, the Spanish-thirds of the Empire were made up of soldiers recruited in all domains of the Habsburgs, Spanish and Portuguese Union of Ibero, Italians, Germans, Walloons, Swiss, Burgundians, flamingos loyal to Spain .. "
(1) The Iberian Union map is present on the page already. (2) The Iberian Union is mentioned in the legend of the main map. This is a perfectly satisfactory compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn´t answered to the CASTILLE posesions of BRAZIL (1). Read it please. The map is wrong without it.
How did you read all my article in less than 19 minutes? Did you read the references? Are all very important for deciding the history of Spain in the first enciclopaedia on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.137.116 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the current state is a compromise, and we have gone over this ad infinitum, so I personally have nothing more to say to you on that matter. As for Peru, feel free to update the map and provide a source for your change showing which map (not from Wikipedia) you got it from. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the style. For talking about Spanish empire, I would recomend people to read more and write less "propaganda negra británica".
About the viceroyalty of Perú, here are a few visual references from outside of the wikipedia, however in text you can found much out there (consult and serach for the "tratado de Tordesillas" and the "tratado de Madrid (1750)".
The new map that was just put up is really bad quality, and that's why I reverted it. I am not disputing it's accuracy, but the quality is definitely not good. Kman543210 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The date of the anachronous map and the Spanish map possesions
Emiliojcp - you appear to be repeatedly reverting this (and related) articles from an anonymous IP address as well as this user name. This is sockpuppetry and will get you blocked, so please stop now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to the accuracy of the new map that someone tries to put up, but the quality is really bad. The colors are off, and it seems like the resolution is worse than any of the other maps. Also, since when did the Spanish Empire go through 1976? I wasn't aware that it was called the Spanish Empire just because it was in Western Sahara. Kman543210 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I´m reverting this with my username if I have logged. I´m not living to see if the upper corner shows "logged". Sorry if I wrong you with the anonymous, I was the one who changed it from 80.***.
You haven´t reply to the argue, so you have to consider to put the correct information please. Should remember that this it´s a public enciclopaedia, and problems must be solved with words and reason, not with indifference.
Give it a bit more time please. I have various maps in my book collection and I'd like to see whether they concur with the map that you have provided above, because it seems to me to be based on vacuous claims to sovereignty - if noone ever settled there, was it really part of the empire? Didn't Spain claim the whole of the New World at the beginning, following Tordesillas? Noone would say Canada was part of the empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I must apologise if I have being a bit demanding.
Yes, the Brazil interiors don´t were populated by the Spaniards before the 1600´s. First settlements became with the first "misiones jesuitas" (jesuit misions? christian voluntariado?, dont know how to translate), and in this line we can say that the most of the territory was only claimed and lighty colonisated. But this is not a reason to exclude it from the map: Siberia is currently very poorly populated, extremely poorly; but here all we can affirm that Siberia its part of Rusia (or not?!).
Taking another examples we can go to your country (US) and think about if the Wild West didn´t form part of the US when wasn´t settled until the land rush? (forgive me if I commit errors, I know a little about American history). Even we can remember the Tumurids, Mongolians or Bereberes (nómadas ~ people from the desert ) were it´s knew that they have a big empire where no constants settlements existed.
Even so, nobody puts "white holes" in the Mongolian empire´s map.
I forgoted, in Tordesillas, Spain and Portugal (before the Iberian Union) decided to repart the world that could to be conquered, before knowing that was a New Continent ( see Waldsemüller ? and Vespucio). Spain claimed only La Española (Hispaniola, Colón arrivals on 1492) before Tordesillas; accepted on 1494 and rathificated via "Bula Papal" (Pope agree?) on 1506. The treaty established that the west atlantic ocean was part of Spain (starting aboute 370miles from Cabo Verde; resulting the meridian 46º 37’ who cuts Brazil from the north to the south), and the south atlantic ocean of Portugal. The Spanish reason for promoving the treaty what that Portugal ignore that the India and Cipango (Japan) could be reached throught the west.
To Kman543210 if we can´t name Spanish Empire, when Spain last only the Sáhara and Guinea then we are improperly saying that the British Empire is today existing. Even more examples are the Portuguese, who was accepted that they were Empire until the transfer of East Timor and Macau.
I wasn't aware that people say that the British Empire still exists today. But regarding the maps, see the 2 side by side below. The color on the one on the left looks blotchy, and there is a faint color line that goes down through Brazil. It just looks blurry and a lower resolution than the one on the right. Kman543210 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)thumb|350px|leftthumb|350px|right
The resolution is the same, when clicking on the image, you can check it. Maybe you can apreciate something diferent because its a .jpg format, not a .bng . White line on Brazil its an error. Otherwise that image its a exaclty copy of the previous image.Emiliojcp (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Having looked at
Spain and Portugal in the New World (1492-1700), Lyle McAlister (p.264) (shows a map similar to the original one)
Empire, Henry Kamen (p.xvi) (has the borders of the Viceroylty of Peru extending out further than the original one, into present day Brazil, but not all the way to the Tordesillas line, and has a line drawn indicating Tordesillas falls)
The History of Latin America, Marshall Eakin p.60 (has a map similar to the original one)
The Penguin Atlas of Modern History, Colin McEvedy p.17 (has a map similar to the original one)
Therefore I disagree with the proposed new map, because:
the above four maps do not agree with it
it represents nominal claims handed out by Tordesillas. Spain never occupied or settled right up to that line, and so it was just a claim.
I absolutely agree with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! Those areas of Brazil were never truly occupied by Spain. If one was to follow those types of claim (issuing from the Tordesillas Treaty), then all of North America would be Spanish, and all of Africa would be Portuguese. The present map is more than absolutely fine - it was the result of huge amounts of carefull discussion and is very well sourced. Let it be as it is. The Ogre (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
you guys are all wrong. brazilian states of santa catarina and rio grande do sul were effectivelly occupied by spain. those should be included in the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.0.158 (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Aragón was not and independent crown. The definition of Spain its : Castille + Aragon
The map shows that the Crown of Aragon its delimited on white from Castille. That division never happened, at least from 1469. Before that date, didnt exist Spain. Spain was created with the fusion of Castille and Aragon. I recomend to change the map for the last. Undo please to last contrib Emiliojcp (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)emiliojcp
I support your changes. You have demonstrated more knowledge on Spanish history than some other users here who seem to stick to some kind of weird agendas without respecting Wiki rules and the sources that you are provinding. Go ahead and change the maps.Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
By the way, according to some simplistic and child-like comments here, I guess we have the right to erase Alaska as part of the US, right?. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I had a look at reference (1) at the end of the article. Looks like an amateur website apparently claiming to be authored by a Finnish person with an MA in Politics. Hmm. This is hardly mainstream, or peer-reviewed material. Couldn't find a reference to Parker anywhere on it either. (With apparently 32 books to his name, Parker is not exactly a minor historian).
I mean, if a reference of this quality is OK, I could write my own piece under a pseudonym, big it up on a few websites, and then quote from it to my heart's content.
That would be freedom of speech, alright, but it would also be WP:OR, just jazzed up a bit to disguise it.
What do you all think? Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
1. It is unclear and overall inaccurate to put one part of the Spanish empire in red, and another in orange. The distinction between the "Habsburg realms" and the overseas territories is not relevant to an article on the "Spanish Empire". All other Wikipedia articles on "Empires" use the same colors for all territories, no matter what administrative differences there were.
2. The Line separating the former kingdom of Aragon (including Cataluña, Valencia and the Balearic Islands) from the rest of Spain is equally irrelevant.
3. The map should also include North Borneo or Sabah which was under Spanish control in the 19th century. (The Philippines still claims this territory, which was part of the former Spanish East Indies). See Sabah Dispute
1. There was a long discussion about this, and this was the consensus. The discussion, and references, can be found further up the talk page.
2. I agree that there is little point in this, but it was part of the consensus.
3. I think you have your facts muddled. Sabah was historically part of the Sultanate of Sulu. In 1848, the Sultan signed a treaty of friendship with James Brooke. In retaliation, Spain attacked Sulu that year, and then returned in 1851, forcing the Sultan to sign a treaty that nominally made his dominions part of the Spanish colony of the Philippines. However, this treaaty was "largely ignored". In 1871 Spain again attacked Sulu, but it was not fully subjugated until 1875. In 1898, the Philippines passed to the United States, and in 1915, the then-Sultan relinquished all claims to Sulu at which time it formally became part of the Philippines. Based on the fact that Sabah was part of the Sultunate of Sulu and Sulu became part of the Philippines, the Philippines claimed it in 1963, but at no time was Sabah part of the Spanish East Indies. Reference: Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, Keat Gin Ooi, Published by ABC-CLIO, 2004, ISBN 1576077705, 9781576077702
I have incorporated a serie of arguments in commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png supported with several sources, including international treaties, but they are in Spanish language due to its great length and my little skill and knowledge of English language. It is a material that could be taken into estimate, but I dare not translate if I use inadequate terms. However, I summarize the main points here:
Spain, as a modern state did not exist. The Habsburg monarchy was a ensemble of kingdoms and territories linked by the monarch, therefore there was no Spanish-Portuguese empire between 1580-1640: there is not an administration for Spain and another for Portugal on the other side.
Portugal was not added nor incorporated to Castile (nor Spanish because it was not a state) but it was not an independent state. Portugal retained their own institutions, but the other territories of the monarchy retained also their own institutions, as Aragon, Flanders, Burgundy, Milan ... and even Castile. All these territories were dependent of the Court in Madrid, where they had their territorial councils. In the wiki Portuguese, the proper title pt:Restauração da Independência, indicates that before 1640, Portugal was not an independent territory.
Castile and Portugal did not establish a personal union, but it was a royal union, which is different, and the legal basis of that union were the Cortes of Tomar.
The Catholic Habsburg monarchy was Spanish, but not a Spanish state nor nation. Spain was a geographical name, but it was also an ideology that began with the Catholic Monarchs' political actions, so that, the European chancelleries, including Portuguese one, acknowledged Spain in their diplomacy and treaties, as an international power or partner, but not as a ensemble of unrelated realms. The contemporaries of the seventeenth century included Portugal in a more flexible notion of Spain that does not adapt to the rigid notion of Spain as a modern state.
Hello Trasamundo! I still haven't read what you wrote in the Commons, but I will go there as soon as I can. Just let me say this two things. First, finally someone with real sources and not just opinions! Secondly, all you say here seem to back up the choice NOT to include the Portuguese Empire in the Spanish anachronous one, exactly because one can not use the modern concept of Spain to designate all of the territoires that were under the control of the Habsburgs, but only, if an anachronous map is to exist (and it would be dificult not to have them since they seem to be the standard in wiki), of those realsm that were part in the formation of the modern Spanish State, as Castile and Aragon, but not Portugal. I'll get back to you in the Commons with more detail. Gracias amigo! Vale. The Ogre (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
The Oger will go to all lengths and interpret all just the way he wants to avoid Portugal and its empire in the same map as the Spanish empire. Sad. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.158.241 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
First of all: greetings Ogre! We haven't talked in many months.
Second of all, and briefly, about your position, that the PE cannot be included because the concept of "Spain" did not exist ca. 1600: If that's so, then there's no reason for a "Spanish Empire", or "British Empire", or "History of Germany", or any such article that "anachronistically" covers periods of history that fall before or after the specifically named polity. For example, we'd require an "English Empire" article for the period before 1707, and then, for the period after 1801 we'd need a "United Kingdom Empire" article. SamEV (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We should avoid these "arguments from logic" in attempting to resolve the map dispute. It is original research. The only way to solve the problem is by posting references. As we have been through this a million times already, it can be shown - and indeed it was shown - that references can be found which support either side. Therefore, in my opinion, the map should show the lowest common denominator, which is just the Spanish colonies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"and indeed it was shown - that references can be found which support either side. Therefore, in my opinion, the map should show the lowest common denominator, which is just the Spanish colonies."
Doesn't work that way, Pat. WP:NPOV requires that all important POVs be represented. Nor is there an issue of space preventing the display of the PE in the lead map, as there would in the case of a dispute about text. SamEV (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Although noone would deny that Philip ruled over Brazil, or that it was a Habsburg possession, it is certainly not the mainstream view that Brazil, or Macau or Mozambique or Angola were Spanish, which is what the map you want would suggest to the reader. The "P.E. not shown" statement and the presence of the Iberian Union map are a perfectly acceptable compromise here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be the mainstream view, only a "significant" view (WP:NPOV), which you admit it is: some experts include the PE in the Spanish Empire. And allow me to remind you that I'd have the Portuguese possessions clearly labelled as such in the map.SamEV (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
An example of nesting, somewhat like in feudalism. So Brazil would have been immediately held by Portugal, but Portugal, in turn, was under substantial Spanish control. Reliable sources say so; that's the only reason I insist on it. SamEV (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately to the Spanish. Which is the reason I insist on it. Also, I ask you this - what happened to the Portuguese colonies when the union dissolved in 1640? If Brazil etc was "Spanish", why did it revert to Portuguese rule without even a fight there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Pat, I do wonder whether you've ever invested even a minute reading about the NPOV policy. You seem stuck on the idea that only one view must be presented. Since my links to the policy page don't seem to have succeeded in getting you to read it, let me quote from it: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."(WP:NPOV. Boldface in the original) SamEV (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to represent both points of view on the same map, isn't it? Something can't be coloured in and not coloured in at the same time. The current map and legend are quite clearly the most neutral point of view possible. The fact that the empires were united is already mentioned in the map legend (part of the compromise). And there is already a map showing both Portuguese and Spanish colonies during the period of the Iberian Union in the article [58]. So don't give me this "NPOV" nonsense please: the article already effectively contains the map you want, further down, in the appropriate place. Feel free to add to the text there if you believe it's not NPOV. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) "It is impossible to represent both points of view on the same map, isn't it? Something can't be coloured in and not coloured in at the same time."
No, Pat. What I and many others have proposed and continue to propose is for the two empires to be colored differently and for the caption to mention the substantial Spanish control exercised in Portugal from 1580 to 1640. SamEV (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No, no, it's a significant view, from important scholars, Pat; so WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Nice try, though. SamEV (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, the map you propose already exists in the article further down. I've already posted plenty of reputable sources above [59] that show why this map is inappropriate for the "headline" one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, I know it's buried further down in the article. That's not good enough.
Besides - it's not even true what you say. It's far from "buried". The Iberian Union is linked to and the Portuguese colonies are linked to in the legend of the map at the top. Basically what this comes down to is that you can't accept the compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Ogre's going for a map to end all maps. I'm pulling for him.
And I remind you I was on Wikibreak when that 'compromise' you speak of was reached, yet you act as though I'm absolutely bound to it and obligated to uphold it. And if it was so great, how come, not just I, but users Trasamundo, Durero, and (of course) EuroHistoryTeacher (and and IP or two, from what I've seen) also find it unacceptable? SamEV (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, lighten up, Pat. "Buried" was a bit of exaggeration for effect. But you know my response: The PE is currently not in the lead map, so it certainly is buried to a casual reader interested only in the introduction. Take it easy. SamEV (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
We were discussing the depiction of the PE, Pat. I said the map showing the PE (the Iberian Union map) is buried further down, not links! SamEV (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
After reading this paragraph written by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately to the Spanish. Which is the reason I insist on it. Also, I ask you this - what happened to the Portuguese colonies when the union dissolved in 1640? If Brazil etc was "Spanish", why did it revert to Portuguese rule without even a fight there?; I understand that Pat Ferrick: a) has not read the discussion from commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png, or b) did not understand the discussion from commons or c) has not wanted to understand the discussion of commons (I don't hope this latter).
A Pat Ferrick's mistake is that he confuses the reality with the utility. Distinguish a Spanish State and a Portuguese State as separate and independent countries is useful for releasing and it is easily understandable to the reader to follow the historic evolution. However, in reality, this conception is correct since the eighteenth century, but is not quite proper for the XVI-XVIIth centuries. I have released reliable sources about how Spain was an ideological aspiration of recovery from the Visigoth and Roman Hispania for contemporaries of the XVI-XVIIth centuries, and therefore is wanted to include Portugal. The important issue to emphasize is that European chancelleries acknowledged Spain as a global power, and not as a collection of independent kingdoms. In fact, there was not an ambassador for the Crown of Aragon, nor an ambassador for the Crown of Castile, but there was a Monarca Católico's ambassador, the Spanish ambassador, and when Portugal joined the Catholic Monarchy, did not retained an independent special ambassador.
If you say that Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately to the Spanish, you are insinuating that only Portugal had a different administration in respect of a Spanish government, and if I follow this misconception, for example in Aragon, there was not a distinct administration, and therefore, you do not know the administrative reality of the Catholic Monarchy, and this is the wrong position that displays the map m:Image: Iberian Union Empires.png. However, if the sentence would have written like this: Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately in the Spanish Administration, it indicates that Portugal, such as Aragon, as Castilla, as Flanders, had its own administration; but they were not independent, since territorial councils were settled in Madrid as the Council of Portugal, and above all the councils, was the Councils of State and of War, which encompass the entire Monarchy. In this way, there was a Spanish government (other than that specifically Castilian) for the entire monarchy, which was included in Portugal.
And here, the second error of Pat, he confuses Castilian with Spanish. While the burden of the monarchy was Castilian, there was an administration in Castilla which did not affect the other territories of the monarchy. When Pat Ferrick says Also, I ask you this - what happened to the Portuguese colonies when the union Dissolved in 1640? If Brazil and so was "Spanish", why did it revert to Portuguese rule without even a fight there?, we could talk also about Ceuta. But I want that you understand that Brazil, like India and other Portuguese territories were Spanish territories, because they belonged to the King of Spain, and when they rose up and stopped belonging to the king of Spain, they ceased to be Spanish. I put in commons a book of Portuguese diplomatic treaties where it appears that the ruler of Portugal was the King of Espanha. The problem is terminological, we can not say that Brazil belonged to Castilla, because Portugal has never been Castile, and did not belong to the administration of Castile, but Brazil as Portugal was Spanish for 60 years, as part of its polisinodial administration.
I have already tried this issue with The Ogre, and we agreed to establish an animated map, so, I do not understand to continue spinning about the same issue without taking into account the profitable discussion about the map in commons. It is true that we have communicated in Spanish and Portuguese for ease, but with the Google translator I do not think that there were much problem in reading that discussion. But of course, it is easier to use arguments as valid as Brazil was never a Spanish colony. End of story, than engaging in reading the historical sources of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, as I added.
Trasamundo (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
That one liner about Brazil not being Spanish is my soundbite rather than argument. My arguments are all based on reliable sources, and I've listed them above. Note that also historians - English language historians, at least - refer to "Spain" and "Portugal" in this period. They don't split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms. Incidentally, I found yet another source that concurs with my view. In "Islands and Empires - Western Impact on the Pacific and East Asia", Ernest S. Dodge writes "In 1580...Philip II of Spain claimed the throne of Portugal. For the next sixty years the crowns of the two Iberian kingdoms remained united. The combined empires circled the globe...in spite of the union of the two crowns, the Portuguese were [not] about to give up their spheres of influence. The two countries were not formally united, and it was specifically agreed that the two colonial empires should remain administratively separate."The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I will try to offer an analytical perspective from my limited English.
I think sometimes that Pat Ferrick, whom I see great presence in this discussion page, looks like a photocopier without considering consequences of what has made.
If we take a paragraph of Pat, we read:
«Because it's an article about the Spanish Empire, not the Habsburg realms. The quotes I provide clearly demonstrate that historians distinguish the Spanish Empire from the Portuguese Empire during the time of the union of the crowns. Ergo, the Portuguese Empire should not appear as part of the Spanish Empire on a map.»
I reply:
I do not understand the difference between Spanish and Habsburg Empire realms, it's like to differentiate between Angevine Empire and House of Plantagenet realms. Afterwards, in the next sentence I would have said: The quotes I provide distinguish the Spanish Empire from the Portuguese Empire during the time of the union of the crowns but they did not explain in detail the structure of the Habsburg Monarchy ergo it is necessary to provide sources that indicate how the monarchy was constituted to make a map accordingly.
The following paragraph is even more surprising:
«Whatever the technical details of the union of the crowns, historians distinguish Spain v Portugal and Spanish Empire vs Portuguese Empire. You are free to deny the usage of the term "Spain" during this era in spite of its usage by historians, but thankfully one of the founding principles of WP is that editors' own original research is not allowed to pollute articles».
And at another place he repeated: «Note that also historians - English language historians, at least - refer to "Spain" and "Portugal" in this period. They don't split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms» y «The two countries were not formally united, and it was specifically agreed that the two colonial empires should remain administratively separate».
Well, if we adopt that there are two realms: the Kingdom of Portugal and Spain (??), this viewpoint indicated that each kingdom had its own jurisdiction-independent administration, which is false (there is no single independent jurisdiction for Spain), this viewpoint does not explain how a Council of Portugal could exist in the Court of Madrid, however, when Felipe II was king of England there was not a Council of England in the Court of Madrid, because England was a kingdom completely independent, this viewpoint does not explain how the king of Spain appears as ruler of Portugal in relation to other nations in international treaties, nor why the Dutch attacked Brazilian territories of a separate Portuguese Empire.
Pat Ferrick relates a period of Spanish history and does not care to analyze the political structure at the time, with the exception of Portugal, which is the only territory that seems to be having the privilege of this analysis, others not. Well, that's the logic of Pat, worrying an area particularly and ignoring everyone else. If some historians do not split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms, Pats said amen and finish of the discussion.
That viewpoint is not logical, since we will find that a serie of sources fit for an article, and for another article of the same epoch and place, other different sources fit to it, and it seems that no matter whether the issues might be contradicted, so, I want to say that it does not seem to be coherent to demonstrate that in an article the Spanish monarchy included in its structure to Portugal, and in another article that the Portuguese empire was not forming a part of this monarchy, or even to say that Portugal was forming a part of the Spanish monarchy, but not the Portuguese empire. Anyway, all of this is very strange, and I wonder why it would not be permitted to expand and complete the Spanish Empire with legal and administrative input about how to rule? Were not ruled the territories?. It seems so scarce adducingthat the overseas empires of both nations remained separate.
But I am going to penetrate into this matter about the constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, and subsequently about its empire. First I will take the relation between Castile and Aragon. In Historia de España directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara Ed. Labor, ISBN84-335-9425-7 (page 201), places us in the es:Alteraciones of Aragon:
«Las Alteraciones de Aragón ponen de relieve los límites del poder real fuera del territorio castellano, así como los sentimientos de los aragoneses, que consideraban a los castellanos como extranjeros. El poderío de Carlos V y, mucho más, el de Felipe II es impresionante y, sin embargo, llama la atención la falta de coherencia de aquel cuerpo inmenso, formado por varias naciones que no tienen la imprensión de pertenecer a una misma comunidad. El lazo lo constituye el monarca, asesorado por los Consejos territoriales: Consejo Real o Consejo de Castilla, Consejo de Indias, Consejo de Aragón, Consejo de Italia (separado del anterior en 1555), Consejo de Flandes, Consejo de Portugal... Existen organismos comunes: el Consejo de Guerra, el Consejo de Estado, pero que están vueltos más bien hacia los asuntos diplomáticos y militares.La gran política, la política exterior, es cosa exclusiva del soberano; a los pueblos solo se les exige que contribuyan con los impuestos» (The Alterations of Aragon emphasize the limits of the royal power out of the Castilian territory, as well as the feelings of the Aragonese, who were considering the Castilians as foreigners. The power of Carlos V and, much more, that of Philip II is impressive and, nevertheless, it calls the attention the lack of coherence of that immense body, formed by several nations that do not have the imprensión of belonging to the same community . The link is constituted by the monarch advised by the territorial Councils: Royal Council or Council of Castile, Council of The Indies, Council of Aragon, Council of Italy (separated from the previous one in 1555), Council of Flanders, Council of Portugal... Common organisms exist: the Council of War, the Council of State, but they are turned rather towards the diplomatic and military matters. The great politics, the foreign policy, is an exclusive issue of the sovereign one; only is demanded from the peoples that they contribute with the taxes). And this is not an original research. Every kingdom had its particular administration, and this was not an exclusive matter of the Portuguese territory. Aragon was composed by several united kingdoms and it did not lose its jurisdictions (Fueros) nor its institutions up to the Decretos de Nueva Planta in the 18th century, and it did not have colonies in America. Then, why is indicated so stubbornly that Portugal had its own administration and Aragon did not have it?, why this inequality?.
Nevertheless, there is a terminological confusion between Castile and Spain, and there is an appellant contrasts of Portugal opposite to Spain. Pat pronounced: «Historians do not go to great lengths to spell out his full title, or to describe "Spain" as a patchwork of substates, one of which is Portugal from 1580-1640. Historians use the terms "Spain" and "Portugal", "Spanish Empire" and "Portuguese Empire". The article should follow the standards of the academic community, not the original research of well intentioned authors who wish to be "absolutely correct". Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed."». Well then, continuing this logic: if certain historians use the term catalano-Aragonese Crown to refer to the Crown of Aragon, and there exist other historians who justify their opposition to this term, then, according to Pat Ferrick's reasoning, there would be necessary to use irrationally catalano-Aragonese Crown, because he has read it just like that, and ending of the discussion.
What I wonder is how it is possible to justify a terminology in sources that they do not treat specifically a subject matter of administrative and organizational type, this is like to try to justify knowledge of botany in very good books of kitchen recipes. The reliables sources that Pat has presented, seem that they offer a good information of economy, trade, religion, conflicts and battles, but they limp on having explained conscientiously the organizational structure, but this does not want to say that there should be no books nor historians that explain that issues.
In the bookEspaña en Europa by John Huxtable Elliott and Rafael Benítez Sánchez-Blanco, University of Valencia (2002), there is talk of a composite monarchy ( but not independent kingdoms), in which each constituent kingdom retained its identity, pages 79-80 «Una parecida buena voluntad a aceptar disposiciones constitucionales e institucionales ya existentes había informado la política de Felipe II ante la unión de Castilla con Portugal. Siguiendo el tradicional estilo de los Habsburgo, esta unión de coronas de 1580 fue otra unión dinástica, aeque principaliter, cuidadosamente planificada para asegurar la supervivencia de la identidad portuguesa, así como la de su imperio» (A similar good will to accept constitutional and institutional already existing dispositions had informed Philip II's policy before the union of Castile with Portugal. Following the traditional style of the Hapsburg, this union of Crowns of 1580 was another dynastic union, aeque principaliter, carefully planned to assure the survival of the Portuguese identity, as well as that of its empire). Hereby, the Portuguese empire ceased to exist during this never swindles (1580-1640) and become subsumed into the Castilian kingdom ever (and his(her,your) colonies), but I will indicate later that both territories Castile and Portugal, with Aragon belonged to the Spanish Monarchy, with its Empire.
More specifically, Elliot reports of what the Catholic Monarchy consists: page 73:
«Dado que el absentismo real era un rasgo ineludible de las monarquías compuestas, era probable que el primer y más importante cambio que experimentase un reino o provincia anexionado a otro más poderoso que él, fuese la marcha de la corte, la pérdida de a categoría de capital de su ciudad principal y el cambio de monarca por un gobernador o virrey. Ningún virrey podía compensar la ausencia del monarca en estas sociedades de la Europa moderna, donde su presencia se consideraba decisiva. Sin embargo, la solución española de designar un consejo compuesto por consejeros autóctonos al servicio del rey palió en gran medida el problema, al proporcionar un foro en el que las opiniones y agravios locales pudieran manifestarse en la corte y el conocimiento local fuese tenido en cuenta a la hora de determinar una política. A un nivel más alto, el Consejo de Estado, compuesto en su mayor parte, pero no siempre en exclusiva, por consejeros castellanos, se mantenía en reserva como última instancia, al menos nominal, de toma de decisiones y de coordinación política atenta a los intereses de la monarquía en su totalidad. Esto no existía en la monarquía compuesta inglesa del siglo XVII» (Since that the royal absenteeism was an unavoidable feature of the compound monarchies, it was probable that the first one and more important change that was experiencing a kingdom or province annexed to other one more powerful that it, it was the develop of the court, the loss of to category of the capital of its principal city and the monarch's change for a governor or viceroy. No viceroy could compensate the absence of the monarch in these societies of the modern Europe, where his presence was considered to be decisive. Nevertheless, the Spanish solution of designating an council composed by autochthonous counselors to the service of the king relieved to a great extent the problem, on having provided a forum in which the opinions and local damages could demonstrate in the court and the local knowledge was had in account at the moment of determining a policy. To a higher level, the Council of State, composed in its most, but not always in sole right, for Castilian counselors, it was kept in reserve as last instance, at least nominally, of making of decisions and of political coordination observant to the interests of the monarchy in its entirety. This did not exist in the compound English monarchy of the 17th century). With regard to the above mentioned, Pat Ferrick has affirmed, with respect to Portugal: It was a union of the crowns, like James VI of Scotland and I of England, not a "takeover"; nevertheless, Elliot denies this similarity, probably Pat, you also do personal research. Also, it would be necessary to ask if Portugal was not forming a part of Spain, according to Pat Ferrick's conception, pero how we explain that the Council of State was dealing with the whole monarchy including Portugal?.
Elliot also presents the origin of the confusion between Castile and Spain, page 78: «Los castellanos, al poseer un imperio en las Indias y al reservarse los beneficios para sí mismos, aumentaron extraordinariamente su riqueza y poder en relación con sus otros reinos y provincias. [...] La posesión de un imperio de ultramar por una parte de la unión de la unión hizo que esa misma unión pensase en términos de dominación y subordinación, contrarios a la concepción que alentaba la supervivencia de una monarquía compuesta unida aeque principaliter.
Allí donde una parte componente de la monarquía compuesta no es sólo obviemente superior a las otras en poder y recursos, sino que también se comporta como si lo fuese, las otras partes sentirán naturalemente que sus identidades se encuentran cada vez más bajo amenaza. Esto es lo que ocurrió a la Monarquía española del siglo XVI y principios del XVII, cuando los reinos y provincias no castellanos se vieron en clara y creciente desventaja con respecto a Castilla» (Castilians, on having possessed an empire in the Indies and on having saved the benefits for themselves, increased extraordinarily their wealth and power in relation with their other kingdoms and provinces. [...] The possession of an empire of overseas on one hand of the union of the union did that the same union was thinking about terms of domination and subordination, opposite to the conception that it was encouraging the survival of a compound united monarchy aeque principaliter.
There where a part component of the compound monarchy is not only obviously superior to others in power and resources, but also, it behaves as if it were, other parts will feel certainly that their identities are increasingly under threat. This is what happened to Spanish Monarchy of the 16th century and beginning of the XVIIth, when the kingdoms and provinces not Castilians were in clear and increasing disadvantage with regard to Castile).
And also shows that Portugal was part of the Spanish monarchy, page 190 «Cataluña, Portugal, Nápoles y Sicilia eran sociedades gobernadas por control remoto desde Madrid, y de modo más inmediato por los virreyes, que no podían compensar plenamente la ausencia de la persona regia. Todas ellas resultaron víctimas de las exigencias fiscales y militares de la Corona española» (Catalonia, Portugal, Naples and Sicily were societies governed by remote control from Madrid, and in a more immediate way for the viceroys, who could not compensate fullly the absence of the royal person. All of them they turned out to be victims of the fiscal requirements and military men of the Spanish Crown).
page. 88
¿Cómo se mantuvieron cohesionadas durante tanto tiempo uniones tan artificiales en origen y tan flexibles en organización? La contigüidad, como afirmaban sus contemporáneos, era indudablemente una gran ayuda, si bien resultó insuficientemente a la hora de mantener a Portugal dentro de la Monarquía española (How were such artificial unions kept united during so much time in origin and so flexible in organization? The contiguity, as its contemporary ones were affirming, it was undoubtedly a great help, though it proved insufficiently at the moment of retaining Portugal inside the Spanish Monarchy); page 182
«Durante 1640, las clases dirigentes en Cataluña y Portugal se mostraron dispuestas a apoyar una revuelta contra la autoridad real o participar en ella. Las precondiciones de este propósito parecen hallarse tanto en la estructura constitucional de la Monarquía española, con su incómoda combinación de gobierno centralizado y realeza absentista como en la politica seguida por Madrid en los veinte años precedentes» (During 1640, the leader classes in Catalonia and Portugal proved to be ready to support a revolt against the royal authority or to take part in it. The previous conditions of this intention seem to be situated so much in the constitutional structure of the Spanish Monarchy, with its inconvinient combination of centralized government and royalty absentee as in the politics followed by Madrid since twenty previous years).
I want that anyone understand that there was no opposition between the kingdom and Portugal and the kingdom of Spain during 1580-1640, but that the kingdom of Portugal, the kingdom of Castile, the kingdom of Aragon ... belonged to the Spanish Realms, which was recognized as an international entity but lacked a strong central administration. Each kingdom remain administratively separate, and in this way, Brazil or Goa were a colonies of Portugal, which belonged to the King of Espanha[60], As the sovereign of the spanish realms. Pat argues that as the overseas empires of both nations remained separate therefore this means that they were both two independent countries, but I already have mentioned how Tuñón de Lara indicates that the Aragonese saw the Castilians as foreigners. In relation to this, again Elliot in La Europa dividida, ISBN84-323-0116-7, focuses on the Castilian term, since in the end Castilians had the territories in America, not the Aragonese, and when he uses Spanish, he refers to the whole monarchy as a whole: (page 284): «Se acordó también que las instituciones políticas y representativas de Portugal deberían permanecer intactas, y que los castellanos tampoco debían ser autorizados a participar en la vida comercial de Portugal ni en la de su imperio. Estas concesiones de Felipe significaban que, aunque la península ibérica se había por fin unido en persona de un solo monarca, Portugal continuaba siendo incluso más que Aragón y cataluña, un Estado semiindependiente, asociado, no incorporado, a la Corona de Castilla [...]
[Felipe] Consiguió también, y sin lucha, un segundo imperio imperio ultramarino: la India y África portuguesas, las Molucas y Brasil. Esto significaba un enorme aumento de poder para la monarquía española, la cual aparecía ante sus rivales como un coloso invencible montado encima del mundo» (It was also agreed that the political and representative institutions of Portugal should remain intact, and that Spanish should not be authorized to participate neither in the commercial life of Portugal, nor in that of its empire. These grants of Philip meant that, although the Iberian peninsula were finally joined into a single person of an alone monarch, Portugal continued to be, even more than Aragon and Catalonia, a semiindependent, associated, unincorporated to the Crown of Castile [...] [Philip] got also, and without fight, a second overseas empire: the Portuguese India and Africa, the Moluccas and Brazil. This meant a huge increase in power for the Spanish monarchy, which appeared before his rivals as an invincible colossus mounted over the world).
From this issue, we extract that the Portuguese empire continued existing, its language, its administration, but it was not independent, but a part of the realms of Spain as Spain was understood in the epoch of the 17th century. John H . Elliott refers this in Spain and its world, 1500-1700, but Pat seems disagreed because in the page 235 this author distinguishes the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. Well then, in a book quoted by Pat Asia in the Making of Europe: A Century of Advance (Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley) indicates in its page 22, that Portugal belonged to the Spanish Crown: «Before the end of the year, the secession of Portugal from the Spanish crown had been proclaimed and at Lisbon the Bragança duke was crowned King John IV».
I already indicated that Castile was not the same thing that Spain, I will pass to reflect what the contemporaries of the 17th century understood on what it was Spain. es:Juan de Palafox y Mendoza quotes in Juicio secreto e interior de la Monarquía para mí solo: «Felipe II perfeccionó la Monarquía con agregar la Corona de Portugal, y sus Indias Orientales á los restante de España» (Philip II perfected the Monarchy adding the Crown of Portugal, and their East Indies to the remaining Spanish). It seem that it is a primary source, but this is also quoted in Escritos seleccionados by José María Jover Zamora, Marc Baldó i Lacomba y Pedro Ruiz Torres, Universitat de València (1997), pág 79, where is indicated: «enseguida tendremos ocasión de comprobar que es precisamente el problema de la unión entre las tres Coronas de los reinos peninsulares y ultramarinos de España lo que centra el interés, la inquietud y la angustia de nuestro escritor». En la página 81 dice «La experiencia de 1640 deja todavía intacto el concepto de España como realidad peninsular; de nación española como gentilicio de aplicación común a castellanos, catalenes o portugueses» (we will soon have occasion to verify that it is precisely the problem of the union between the three Crowns of the peninsular and overseas kingdoms of Spain which focuses the interest, the concern and the distress of our writer). In the page 81 says «La experiencia de 1640 deja todavía intacto el concepto de España como realidad peninsular; de nación española como gentilicio de aplicación común a castellanos, catalanes o portugueses» (The experience of 1640 makes the concept of Spain still intact as peninsular reality; of Spanish nation as(like) national of common application to Castilians, Catalans or Portuguese).; y en la page 88 ndicates this wide conception of Spain: «En fin, el proceso iniciado con la Restauración portuguesa de 1640, formalizado jurídicamente en 1668 con el reconocimiento de la independencia de Portugal por Carlos II, queda consolidado tras la guerra de sucesión y el establecimiento de una nueva dinastía. España ha dejado de ser definitivamente la expresión geográfica e histórica , comprensiva de toda la Península, arragigada en una noble tradición clásica; España ha pasado a ser una entidad política que comparte, con otra entidad política llamada Portugal, el solar de la Hispania del Renacimiento» (Al last, the process begun with the Portuguese Restoration of 1640, formalized juridically in 1668 with the recognition of the independence of Portugal by Carlos II, stays consolidate after the succession war and the establishment of a new dynasty. Spain abandoned definitively the geographical and historical expression, comprehensive of the whole Peninsula, ingrained in a noble classic tradition; Spain has become a political entity that shares, with another political entity called Portugal, the lot of the Hispania of the Renaissance). Inside the same book, page 77 and other historians as Elliot [61] appears Count-Duke's conception of Spain of institutionalizing and centralizing the monarchy, as well as explained in a memorandum addressed to King Philip IV: «Tenga Vuestra Majestad por el negocio más importante de su Monarquía el hacerse Rey de España; quiero decir que no se contente con ser Rey de Portugal, de Aragón, de Valencia, conde de Barcelona, sino que trabaje por reducir estos reinos de que se compone España al estilo y leyes de Castilla sin ninguna diferencia, que si Vuestra Majestad lo alcanza será el príncipe más poderoso del mundo» (For Your Majesty the most important business of State is to become King of Spain. I mean, Sire, that you should not be content to be King of Portugal, of Aragon, of Valencia and Count of Barcelona but you should direct all your work and thought, with the most experienced and secret advice, to reduce these realms which make up Spain to the same order and legal system as Castile, that if Your Majesty reaches it will be the most powerful prince of the world). In the page 77 of Jover's book, we read «Su audaz arbitrio apuntaba a una especie de consumación del movimiento renacentista encaminado a la reconstrucción de la España visigoda, centrada en torno a Castilla, fundiendo en un solo molde las tres Coronas destinadas a fundamentar la monarquía. Lo prematuro de tal propuesta quedará reflejado, cinco años más tarde, en unos párrafos de la Suplicación dirigida al mismo monarca por el portugués Lorenzo de Mendoza, allí donde alude a la unión de Reinos y Monarquía de Vuestra Majestad, que principalmente depende de estas tres Coronas de Castilla, Portugal y Aragón unidas y hermanadas» (His bold freewill pointed to a kind of consummation of the Renaissance movement directed to the reconstruction of the Visigothic Spain, centered around Castilla, merging into a single mold the three Crowns destined to support the monarchy. The premature of such will be reflected, five years later, in a few paragraphs of Suplicación
"Suplicación" addressed to the same monarch for the Portuguese Lorenzo of Mendoza, where he alludes to the union of Kingdoms and Monarchy of Your Majesty, who principally depends on these three Crowns of Castile, Aragon and Portugal joined and related).
Therefore, it is necessary to notice that the authors who treat the juridical and governmental content of the Monarchy, use a precise terminology according to the primary sources, whereas other authors label what Spanish is and what Portuguese is, as a useful way of including long temporary processes of economic or military type; but from the specifically juridical area it is necessary to enter the issues as they were, and not and not as they may be more understandable for the reader. What I come to say is that a historian who treats on trade and economy in his book, he is not going to offer juridical details so precise as another author who analyzes the government of the Monarchy. Why are rejected some sources that use a terminology adapted to the original sources, as opposed to others which we do know the origin of terminology?. Perhaps Pat Ferrick should notice that you are using Bias
Finally, in the Historical World Atlas (its original title is DTV - Atlas zur Weltgeschichte) by Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, Ediciones Istmo (1986) ISBN84-7090-005-6, in the page 258, appears a mapentitled as «El Imperio mundial hispano-portugués h. 1580» where in appears with of the same color all the territories of the king Philip II. Nevertheless, it has copyright and I do not be how to announce it.
If you'd like others to consider your opinions, please keep them brief. The above is verging on an essay and is extremely difficult to read. All I have to say at the moment is that your last reference proves my point. It's labelled El Imperio mundial hispano-portugués, not Imperio mundial hispano. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize if I have spoken to Pat Ferrick in offensive terms. Proceed to the matter, I have to say that if I have written such a wide exposition, it is precisely to analyze in detail this whole issue without gaps of doubt, but I can summarize it briefly:
There are historians who put their attention in socioeconomic aspects (for example), and therefore, they will not use a precise terminology to refer to the juridical area, it does not mean that the information is incorrect or that the source is invalid, simply, there are used terms accommodated to the reality of the information to divulgation (they are useful words for the comprehension of the reader), otherwise these historians would have to leave of the main topic to explain juridical basis of the legal terminology, the same issue happens with generic historians, who focusing on facts they will be able or not to put determination in the juridical winding path, according to the book and the author; on the contrary, if we read authors who put their attention in the juridical-governmental matter, then, they will use primary sources and they will interpret them consequently; So, the thesis which I advocate, is to take into account these authors who have in mind the jurisdiction, diplomacy, the law..., since they offer us a more complete vision of the Spanish empire based on the primary sources of the period, and these primary and secondary sources tell us that Portugal with its empire joined to the framework of the Spanish monarchy of the Hapsburg, retaining its institutions as all the kingdoms of the Catholic monarchy, to which other countries and chancelleries referring as Spain. This is what I have contributed in this talk page and in commons, and I indicate that Pat Ferrick contributes bias if he ignores these thesis.
In this respect, the quoted Atlas Histórico Mundial offers concise facts, date and good maps, but it suffers from juridical gaps, so that the terminology does not agree to a rigorous standard, but divulgative one. In the page 253 we read: «Incorporación de Portugal a la Corona española. La fricción entre las políticas expansionistas de Castilla y Portugal había planteado a los Reyes Católicos el objetivo de la unión peninsular, perseguida mediante la unión de enlaces matrimoniales. 17-7-1580 Felipe II (nieto de Manuel I de Portugal por línea materna), ayudado por la hábil negociación de Cristóbal de Moura, es proclamado soberano. Días antes el pretendiente Antonio prior de Crato (apoyado por el pueblo y el bajo clero) se proclama rey (huyendo tras la entrada del ejército del duque de Alba y la amenaza de la escuadra del marqués de Santa Cruz). 16-4-1581 Las Cortes de Tomar reconocen soberano a Felipe II, que jura respetar todas las libertades portuguesas (lo cual cumple escrupulosamente). [...] 12-10-1640: Una junta de nobles, reunida en Lisboa, dispone el levantamiento contra Castilla para el 1-12-1640: los conspiradores detienen a la gobernadora de Portugal, Margarita de Saboya, y estalla en todo el país un motín popular» (Incorporation of Portugal to the Spanish Crown. The friction between the expansionist policies of Castile and Portugal had raised to the Catholic Kings the goal of the peninsular union, pursued through the union of matrimonial relationships. 17-7-1580 Philip II (grandson of Manuel I of Portugal by mother line), helped by Cristóbal de Moura's skilful negotiation, is proclaimed sovereign. Days before the claimant Antonio prior of Crato (supported by the people and the lesser clergy) is proclaimed a king (fleeing after the entry of the duke of Alba's army and the threat of the Marquess of Santa Cruz's squadron). 16-4-1581 The Cortes of Tomar acknowledges Philip II as sovereign, who swears to respect all the Portuguese freedoms (which performs scrupulously). [...] 12-10-1640: A lords' junta, assembled in Lisbon, disposes the raising up against Castile for 1-12-1640: the conspirators arrest the governor of Portugal, Margarita de Saboya, and a popular riot erupts in the whole country.)
It is for this, because I encourage an animated map as a optimal and wise solution to observe the evolution of the territory known as Spain and its possessions in the world, at any given moment; Portugal joined to the administrative structure that existed in the Spain of the Catholic Kings and Charles I, an administrative structure that remained in effect until Philip V, and, I return to repeat, where every kingdom of the Monarchy retained its own administration.
Here you can read a fragment of "Historia del Imperio Español" (Ciriaco Pérez Bustamante, catedrático de Historia de España) that confirms Trasamundo's arguments:
Las dimensiones del Imperio español.- En tiempos de Felipe II llega a su cumbre la extensión territorial del Imperio hispánico, casi planetario. En Europa posee toda la Península ibérica (reinos de Castilla, Aragón y Portugal), las islas Baleares, el Rosellón y la Cerdaña en la frontera francesa, el Franco Condado, los Países Bajos, el Milanesado, Nápoles, Sicilia, Cerdeña y los presidios de Toscana. En Africa, Orán, Mazalquivir, Melilla, Ceuta, Tánger, Arcila, Mazagán, las islas Canarias, Madera, Azores, Cabo Verde, territorios en el golfo de Guinea, islas Santo Domingo, Príncipe, Fernando Poo, Annobón y Santa Elena, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Sofala, Zambeze. En Asia, los establecimientos portugueses del golfo Pérsico (Ormuz), de la India (Goa, Angediva, Cananor, Cochin), Malaca y Macao (China), y en Oceanía, las colonias portuguesas de las Molucas y Timor y las españolas de Filipinas. En América, la posesión portuguesa del Brasil y el inmenso dominio hispánico desde el estrecho de Magallanes hasta California, la Florida y las grandes Antillas.
Although Durero has responded before, I would add: I do not know if you were born yesterday, but you're accusing me of something I would like that you prove. Let me remind you WP:GOODFAITH (Civility, Maturity, Responsibility) y WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence). You may post a report a request for checkuser. Nevertheless, I do not get angry for your huff WP:SIGNS (In the event of an edit war, it is quite easy for accusations of sock puppetry to occur), although it seems that it is an ad hominem argument.
If I knew that there was this discussion in English wikipedia is due to the fact that The Ogre put his comments across several wikis. I, Trasamundo, discussed with The Ogre in the commons about the image of the Spanish empire, which is an image that is in commons, not in the English wikipedia, I remember. While all other wikis discussions are stopped since The Ogre has not exposed the animated map, nevertheless, in this talk page there is a continuous spin about an image that is not here, but in commons. Because of it, I brought my arguments from commons and I exposed them here, then, I asked for Durero to put the source that he had put in the talk page in commons, because I thought that was not correct that I put a source which I do not have it, and for avoiding that you accused me of personal research. You will say to me that this is designated as meatpuppet, but Durero's commentary was introduced previously in commons and by request of The Ogre, the only thing that there has done Durero is put his own source into the English wikipedia, only in order that you, Pat Ferrick, read it, since you think that in commons there is many crap (User_talk:The_Ogre#Spanish Map) and it seems that your eyes do not get ready to read out of English wikipedia. At any rate, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick can invite someone to participate in the discussions (User_talk:The_Ogre#Dutch Empire), but I cannot.
Finally if I keep track of your logic, then I am a meatpuppet for The Ogre because The Ogre informed me about this talk page, or The Ogre and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick are the same person because both have uphold the same viewpoint, or better, I am The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's Straw puppet. Simply hilarious. Trasamundo (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
From the outside, since I haven't taken part in the previous discussions. Wouldn't it be possible to create different maps of the "Spanish Empire" in different key dates? For example, a map of the territories of the Catholic or Hispanic Monarchy (the terms more widely used by scholars right now since Spain or Spanish Empire is possibly an anachronistic term) after and before the death of Charles V, after and before the Iberian Union, after the Portuguese restoration, after the Treatry of Utrecht, after the Hispanic American independence, after 1898 and in the fifties... Properly named (not confusing Spain with the Catholic Monarchy) would be enough, isn't it? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read such a rule anywhere, so it should be dismissed. IMHO, the main issue is the one related to the name, "Spanish Empire"... For me, the term Hispanic Monarchy or Catholic Monarchy is the term that most accurately defines such an empire (especially when it comes to the Ancient Regime). After the Spanish Independence War and the Hispanic-American independence, the term Spain is possibly mostly accurate. With regard to the map, I think that the most appropriate one would be one depicting the Hispanic Monarchy at his highest extension, providing an appropriate name (for instance, "The territories of the Hispanic Monarchy at its highest extension (during the Iberian Union, 15xx-16xx don't remember the dates). Regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It is the convention, not the rule, I think he meant. And maps should be based on maps in reliable sources, not based on what you feel is most appropriate or accurate. I'm yet to see a map in a reliable source which has Brazil labelled as "Spanish". I have provided several sources already where the empires are either labelled separately or are labelled "Spanish-Portuguese Empire" (ie a joint entity). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, what I tried to point out was simply that possibly the name of the article is not the best one. Portugal and its empire was, for several decades yet another possession of the Hispanic Monarchy. Using the term "Spanish Empire" when the term Spain is used with different meanings (which by the way is the root cause of this endless discussion) is simply misleading. With regard to sources, I have one that possibly illustrates the problem. Henry Kamen in Empire: How Spain Became a World Power (I have the Spanish edition), when talking about the "Spanish empire" (written between quotation marks) administered by Philip II, lists Portugal and its dominions, but adding "Portugal and its dominions, ruled by the Spanish chrown between 1580 and 1640, always kept its autonomy and, officially, were not under Spanish administration" (mind that it's an English translation, mine, from my edition in Spanish which, in itself, is a translation from an original in English). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion that the name should be changed is making the same point that I have always made. This is an article on the Spanish Empire. It is not an article on the Habsburg Empire, although of course it is not possible to discuss one without referring to the other. But the two are not equivalent, and the title makes it clear which one this article is about. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have tried it, as Wikipedia:Etiquette indicates: If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your way is better. I apologize if I have done too long explaines to discover the shortcomings of the opposite viewpoint and to contribute reliable sources to provide a broader and more inclusive perspective without contradictions, but I specially regret the wasted time in translation and making my statement for being systematically ignored. For those who want to read, I'm going to provide other contributions to dismount proud assertions like these:
«You'd have to provide quotes from historians such as "the Spanish colony of Brazil" or "the Spanish colony of Macau". Had you done much reading on the subject, you'd know that historians do not do this», «Brazil was never a Spanish colony. End of story». We can read:
-John Armstrong Crow (1980), The Epic of Latin America. University of California Press page 195: «During all these years Portugal and Spain formed a single kingdom (1580-1640). Philip II had made good his claims to the Portuguese throne by force, and the little kingdom did not regain its independence until 1640, when Spanish power was well on the decline. Consequently, the Spanish monarch was also ruler of Brazil, and the mamelucos of Sao Paulo, as well as the Jesuit mission Indians, were his subjects. [...] page 250: For example, in 1640, when Portugal freed herself from the yoke pf Spain, the Paulist decided to declare their own independence of Portugal and choose their own king. page 364: Beginning about 1580, a few single ships under special register or permit were allowed to enter the harbor of Buenos Aires. They could travel directly to Spain and, in certain cases, were allowed to trade with Brazil, then a part of the Spanish Empire». (page 195-196)
And with regard to the allegation «Note that also historians - English language historians, at least - refer to "Spain" and "Portugal" in this period. They don't split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms», I have already demonstrated properly that historians who rely on primary sources drop such assertions, although they refine assertions as «The two countries were not formally united, and it was specifically agreed that the two colonial empires should remain administratively separate» distinguishing Spain forCastile. I'll put another source: Ali Farazmand (1994) Handbook of Bureaucracy, CRC Press: «The nation of Spain resulted from the unification of Castile and Aragon in 1479, although both kingdoms retained their separate governments. At the time of Philip II (reg. 1556-1598) ascended to the throne, he became the ruler of a vast, widely scattered territory, including Spain, the Netherlands, the Two Sicilies, and a rapidly expanding empire in the New World. He added Portugal to his kingdom in 1580, thereby bringing the entire Iberian peninsula under his control. (pag 12) [...] Many of Philip's -and Spain's- problems arose from the highly decentralized nature of the empire. Within Spain proper, Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia had their own laws and tax systems; Portugal retained its separate system from its incorporation in 1580 to its independence in 1640; and Sicily had its own legislature and tax structure. Naples and Milan were under more direct control from Madrid, and the Americas became a major source of revenue for the Crown after 1560». (page 13).
I have submitted reliable sources that show and support a viewpoint. I have made a critical analysis and in the light of which, I find contradictions between both sources. In this regard, I simply pretend to bring the attention of the bias of the reliable sources: It cannot have the same validity sources that they are concerned with the legal issues and analyze primary sources, with regard to other reliable sources that they focus the attention on facts without concerning in the detail nor in the terminological basis; we have found examples in the quoted Altas by Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, Ediciones Istmo (1986), and the Kamen's book quoted by Ecemaml, where again, the terms are used flexibly and hence, there are different denominations in the speech of the same Kamen, but in spite of that, the knowledge of historical fact is easily understandable, and this book remains a reliable source. In my previous extensive explain, I have already indicated with sources that the scholars who examine the legal structure, primary sources, and proper terminology, settle (those scholars) that Portugal belonged to Spain, the Spanish crown, and therefore its empire, although the administration were separate. what is the reason to ignore these sources? Nobody knows it.
In the same sense, the maps also suffer from the same bias, since the important on the map is not the constitution nor administrative internal structure but the projection on the outside and the variation of borders in the time. Special mention raise me the Ortelius's (not Mercator) maps of 1587, In this map, the territories of Brazil do not appear highlighted in a different way to other Spanish territories, where the borders are demarcated coloring only the edge, a color for New Spain, other one for Peru and other one for Brazil. Turning to another Mercator's map of 1595, it is geographical and it does not indicate any administrative border. In both maps a legend appears in Brazil wich indicates that the Portuguese discovered/found (inventa) Brazil in the year 1504. But from here to imagine that was an independent country then is already throw imagination, and this is speculation and original research; so, in other maps previous to 1580 such a mention does not appear as in Thevez's map of 1575. In other maps do not see this appointment (except Ortelius) Mercator 1587, and when the boundaries appear, they are administrative regions as Mercator 1587, Goos 1626, Plancius 1630,Sparkes 1635, Janssonius 1636. It is interesting to see that in this Plancius' map of 1594 does not exist border which separates Portugal of the rest of Spain, whereas it appears border between England and Scotland. On the other hand, here you have a map of the Spanish monarchy under Philip II, which includes Brazil and India.
Concluding, opposite to the geographical position of Iberia=Spain-Portugal, I present the juridical and legal position Spain=Castile+Aragon+Portugal(1580-1640), supported with reliables sources and answering with reliables sources also to the objections presented. Since I try to understand the opposite point of view, I still will have to read that this is an article about the Spanish Empire (which did not include Portuguese colonies), not an article on the Habsburg Empire (which included Portugal), well then, I will be interested in the difference between both empires is proven with sources, since that affirmation seems original research or synthesis and infringes verifiability; and for curiosity, I would like to know how on the one hand the Spanish empire was organized, and on the other hand Hapsburg empire, especially when the empire Hapsburg refers to Austria, Hungary, Bohemia... I have contributed with sources that demonstrate that the Spanish empire included Portugal and I will await the sources of the one who establishes as absolute truth that the Spanish Empire and the Empire Hapsburg are both distinct concepts to support an idea that is not maintained coherent. Trasamundo (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Man you are verbose. I took a quick look at some of your quotes and they are along the lines of "Philip added to his possessions." For the ten millionth time, it is not in dispute that Philip ruled over the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Also the first map you cited (this one about which you (slightly incomprehensibly) wrote "Special mention raise me the Ortelius's (not Mercator) maps of 1587, In this map, the territories of Brazil do not appear highlighted in a different way to other Spanish territories, where the borders are demarcated coloring only the edge, a color for New Spain, other one for Peru and other one for Brazil.". Erm - excuse me? Underneath "Bresilia", it says "a Lusitanis". Do you know what that means? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt04:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for saying to me verbose, but I do not like prattling.
For the ten millionth time plus one, Philip II did not only rule Portugal with Brazil ... but he integrated it within the organizational framework of the Spanish monarchy inherited from the Catholic Kings and Charles I, I should have been put boldfaces to these fragments: After 1580, with the absortion of Portugal; when it (Brazil) formed part of Spain's global monarchy; added to that crown [Portugal with the Portuguese possessions to Spanish monarchy]; Brazil, then a part of the Spanish Empire; En 1580, à l'occasion de l'anexion du Portugal et de ses colonies à l'empire espagnol. However, these events are not as important as addressing the organizational structure, which actually shows that Portugal was not ruled as an indepedient empire beside a Spanish empire, but it was inside the Spanish monarchy as another kingdom.
The quotation of Ortelius's map (and others of Ortelius and several of Mercator), and Mercator's is Bresilia inventa a Portogalensibus anno 1504, Bresilia a Lusitanis Aº 1504 inventa: Inventa is a verb in form perfect passive participle that it means discovered, a is a ablative preposition (equal to ab) which it means from, away from or by (agent), so we will read Brazil discovered by Portuguese, year 1504. In other posterior maps do not see such quote, and it do not appear in previous others as the quoted Thevet's map of 1575 or this Ramusio's map (1556), which probably it would suggest that before 1580 Brazil was not Portuguese, was it?. Really this quote does not mean anything special. Trasamundo (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've already outlined many sources here [62]. "The empires remained separate". I have nothing to add to that. Instead of continuing to write paragraph upon paragraph of material here, I suggest we wait until Ogre produces his proposed map. Also, there are far more important things to be done to this article. As it stands right now, it is an awful mess. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
EuroHistoryTeacher's recent edits
EurohistoryTeacher has been engaging in some editing of longstanding text (without providing references) and has now reverted three times in total despite a request on his talk page to engage here first. (He's also been engaging in personal attacks [63] which, combined with the short contribution history to WP, suggests to me he's a sockpuppet, but that's a different story). I am not going to get engaged in an edit war but I strongly disagree with these edits and hope other editors can encourage him to engage here first. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Look PatFerrick i can tell you ANY FACT about the spanish empire here , just go ahead and ask and please leave and dont encourage vandalism in the spanish empire article, go ahead ask ANYTHING , i will gladly answer
and yes i shouldn't have said Ogre is a liar , i think he is just too proud and you calling me a sockpuppet is not too nice either but i wont make a big scandal like you :)
t
Your behaviour is now unacceptable. Not only are you changing the text, you are unilaterally changing the map in spite of the tortuous process of reaching consensus on it. I have asked you politely several times now to use this talk page if you wish to make non-trivial and contentious changes, yet you are ignoring that and persisting in reverting. Please desist from that immediately and outline your arguments here. Otherwise, it's very simple: you will get blocked. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay so what do you want? you put the spanish empire and wrote that it ended in 1898! well how? in the map you list spanish sahara but you put the time of the empire until 1898! you dont make sense Spanish sahara was given back in 1898? NO!, well block me if you want but im only trying to make these articles better due to huge bias and incorrect revisionism!
stop trying to shut the truth!t
Fair enough about 1898->1975. Not so about the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in the map. The current map/legend was the result of a long discussion and attempt to reach consensus (readable in the archives). You should not unilaterally change this without seeking agreement here first. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Regards Patrick
do you have a degree on this subject ??do i hear a no?
anyways Spanish Kings in the late 1700s sended conquistadors to place military forts in British Columbia so i think it should be included in the map, also there was military presense in the southern TIP of alaska to the Patagonia , do you undertsnad ? and also the amazon basin wasnt given up until much later because of Torsedila treaty so it should be included in the map , the very same one i uploaded but you deleted , and what about Spanish Prensence in INDIA AND CHINA?! why isnt it shown?!
Patrick i would like to have total command of the article for at least 20 minutes without you interrupting and deleting it , you obiously have not as much insight on this particular subject as i do
the empire expanded her territory well into the late 19 century when Spain started to colonize nearby islands in the Asia-pacific territory , but she lost them after 1898 , the rest of the asian-pacific islands were sold to Germany in 1899 , finnaly setting the sun on the spanish empire , is this wrong?! NO ITS NOT ! why do you act so bossy and think yourself owner of the article? are you a bot ? or a admin? if not then stop! t—Preceding undated comment was added at 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC).
Hello, Patrick.
I would like us all to resolve the map dispute. As you probably remember, I never accepted the exclusion of the PE, so I'm with Teacher on that. Therefore, there cann't said to be a consensus.
Teacher: please stop the edit war. It's possible (I can't say I'm sure, though) that we can work it out here. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(It's Pat Ferrick, not Patrick.) OK, perhaps more accurately, a compromise rather than consensus was reached, but nevertheless, the compromise has stood for over a year, and unilaterally changing it is not the right way to proceed. If you really must reopen the debate (though I groan at the prospect), then feel free to do so here on the talk page. I'd be interested to know what new information you or anyone else has uncovered since the last round. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It will include the info I presented the first time. I think I was developing a pretty good case, which, as I often do, I failed to press. We reached no conclusion, as you know.
And yes, it's Pat! I guess that I keep subconsciously seeing "Patrick" because of "(Fe-)rrick". Just out of curiousity: am I the only one who's called you Patrick? SamEV (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Look Patrick i have created a new map with good sources im ready to put it up , do I HAVE to ask you for permission ?t
Article quality
This article is in serious need of editorial improvements. There are no inline references, there is far too much detail given that this is supposed to be an overview article (do we really need the nitty gritty of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden's activities?), and the language in places is often very poor ("Immediately Philip's government set up a ministry of the Navy and the Indies and created first a Honduras Company, a Caracas company, the Guipuzcoana Company, and — the most successful one — a Havana Company") or simply inappropriate for an encyclopaedia ("The time for rejoicing in Madrid was short-lived."). Does anyone else agree with me? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt05:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Size and Map of the spanish empire
wow...why is the empire so small??
the spanish empire reached 20 million square miles and OWNED the oregon territory , parts of sotuhwestern canada , parts of Brazil, etc . —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Correct map of the Spanish Empire
The current Map is wrong , i think we should change it , i made a new map and im ready to put it up , anyone objects?
I dont think all of them are "self-published" or "wikipedia websites" (??) .
Well what changes will you want to make to the map i made? because we NEED to change the current map fast , is too biased and shows the Spanish Empire size IN MODERN-DAY BORDERS terms .Also nobody is claiming that portuguese colonies were incorporated in the Spanish Empire , i think we should write in between parenthesis or apart , for example : "In Pink portuguese territories governed by Spanish kings 1580-1640" , or something like that , of course a little more elaborated .
The article needs reform and fast as possible --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
If you want to correct the borders of the parts ruled by Spain, that's fine, noone will object to that. If you want to suggest that the Spanish Empire contained Brazil or Goa, that is not fine. The caption already mentions the Iberian Union, that is enough. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
when you say "If you want to suggest that the Spanish Empire contained Brazil or Goa, that is not fine." i don't think you understand the "Brazil" part , Brazil as a colony belonged to Spanish kings for 60 years , however , PARTS OF MODERN-DAY BRAZIL belonged to spanish kings for centuries!http://alerce.pntic.mec.es/lsam0005/2bach_historia/imagenes/imperio_felipe2.jpg
Again, as I wrote above "if you want to correct the borders of the parts ruled by Spain, that's fine, noone will object to that." (This applies to the borders in South America.) However, as someone who professes to have a degree in this subject and scorns others for not having one (or assuming that they do not have one), I would have thought that you would be able to provide references in the form of books rather than websites you googled. Finally, I will continue to vehemently disagree with any inclusion of the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Almost half of modern-day Brazil belonged to Spanish Kings , so if i chage it , you WON'T have a problem? wow thats a first :)
i think portuguese colonies should be included just as european territories are , because those euro lands didnt form a "spanish state" and neither did portuguese colonies...or aragonese mediterranen lands...
its very hard to define Spain as a nation in the 15/16th century , it was rather seen as a multi-national enterprise , where lands were like private possessions of the Kings , just like Belgian Congo was to Leopold .
Can you explain from your point of view why portuguese colonies should NOT be included , while aragonese or hasburg european territory (outside of Castille) is ?
Castille was the axis of the empire , yet many other lands belonged to Aragon or Hasburg Kings and they are still included in the map , so why shouldnt portguese colonies be? . I think this is pure foolishness .
One more thing , how do i put sections of the history books in the screen so you can see it? i dont think such thing was invented yet , so all i can show you is internet stuff , and the book list in wikipedia is something i haven't looked at and dont understand...
--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
ok thanks for the info Ferrick , now back again to the topic , can you answer my question (as specified above) please?
Can you explain from your point of view why portuguese colonies should NOT be included , while aragonese or hasburg european territory (outside of Castille) are ?
Castille was the axis of the empire , yet many other lands belonged to Aragon or Hasburg Kings and they are still included in the map , so why shouldnt portguese colonies be?
--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I have already outlined my position several months ago and pointed you to it above [65]. In summary, (1) this is an article on the Spanish Empire, not "the set of territories ever ruled over by Spanish kings" (2) the map of the Iberian Union is already in the article. Furthermore, the amount of attention that this maps gets is ridiculous. The article itself is a complete and utter mess and needs serious cleanup. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok you might not understand something , the phrase "Spanish Empire" in its pure version is something extremely hard to define , if you want to put it in that case , then the Spanish "Empire" in fact wouldnt exist , Empire wasnt used back then to refer to oversea territories , they saw themselves as KINGDOMS not Empires...
the pics show big chunks of Brazil being part of the Audiencia de Quito and the 3 small countries of Guyana , suriname and french guyana as being part of the Audiencia of Santa Fe , both which were part of the Vice Royalty of Peru
we NEED to include portuguese colonies , otherwise if we dont , we shouldn't show the Castillian american lands , the aragonese mediterranean lands and hasburg inheritance of Charles V HRE , (Carlos I of Spain) , because they weren't incorporated into a "spanish empire"
--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Your arguments are original research. The only thing we "need" to do is ensure that all material added is verifiable, and I have already outlined many reliable sources (not websites I googled) that do not consider Portuguese colonies to be Spanish from 1580-1640. I'm not going to get into another round of arguments on this with you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
No is NOT original research as much as you want to put my arguements down , it is not .
No historian considers portuguese colonies from the period 1580-1640 to be spanish or to be incoorporated into a "spanish state" (which didn't exist)and that is what i also believe .
Portugal remained a separate state (with its respective colonies/territories) just as Castille or Aragon remained with theirs , the only thing all of them had in common was that they were ruled by a SINGLE MONARCH , so not including Portugal and its empire , would be contradictory , the "Spanish Empire" ("spanish" is nothing but a name ) consisted of Portugal/Castille/Aragon (portugal for a shorter period) and their territories/colonies AS WELL as the Hasburg private possesions like the Low countries and Italian states
do you understand ? you seem like a serious hispanophobe , no insult inttended --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
A hispanophobe you say? That must mean I hate half my family, as I am half Spanish. As for your "logic" about being ruled by a single monarch, Great Britain and Hanover were ruled by single monarchs, but no historian considers Hanover a part of the British Empire. It was a personal union. It seems like we are mostly in agreement, but I maintain the view that the Habsburg Empire does not equate to the Spanish Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I swear solemnly that EuroHistoryTeacher and myself are not the same person. :-)
Secondly, Can someone explain to of Pat Ferrick the difference between the personal union and the royal union (dynastic union), aeque principaliter?. I already demonstrated with references that England and Scotland is not a case similar to that of Portugal. Again, I find another inappropriate example such Great Britain-Hannover (1714-1837), it is obvious that it was a personal union, since there was neither institutions nor common administration, but in case of Portugal, it was integrated in the organizational framework of the Spanish monarchy, and so, there was a State council for the whole Monarchy, a territorial Council of Portugal together with the Councils of Aragon, Castile, Flanders, Italy, the Indies, but where was the Council of Spain?. Here you are, the dictamen sobre el título "Príncipe de Gerona" by es:Juan Ferrara Badía, wich it clarifies what is a personal union and a royal union (dynastic union). I will not worry to translate it because neither the Spanish half nor the English half will read it.
Finally, I would only remember that I have contributed with sources which refuted Pat Ferrick's (et alterum) viewpoint, and some of that sources are based on primary sources of the epoch (XVI-XVIIth centuries), I highlighted and revealed the gaps in the opposite viewpoint and I have responded and provided evidence to the challenges and objections raised by the opposing party. I need not the reply to this message, simply it is a reminder, since in fact I have not received a serious reasoned and argued response, only false accusations and prattles; someone should read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Well, I will wait until The Ogre produces his proposed map. Trasamundo (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Pat Ferrick , hispanophobe doens't only means that you "hate" hispanics or hispanic culture and history , you can dislike it , or try to put it down , which it looks to me what you are trying to do in this case . Yes im sure your family is half spanish .
Anyways , you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS , there was no such a things as a "Spanish Empire" before 1768 , after this date it was organized into a formal empire , by this time however , the hasburg european territories ,the aragonese european territories , etc were a thing of the past...
The Castillian lands , the aragonese lands and the hasburg inheritance in europe didnt became part of a "spanish state" , the same about Portugal and its colonies , it DIDN'T became part of Castille or Aragon.
The Spanish Empire before 1768 , was a multi-national enterprise , lands all over the world belonged to a single monarch but were from different crowns , ie. Peru to Castille , Naples to Aragon , India Goa to portugal , low countries and Milan to Hasburgs , but they weren't incoorporated into a single state , rather it worked like a confederacy , how many times am i going to explain this to you?!
do you not understand? this portuguese inheritance is unique , not comparable to Hannover and UK or Scotland and England ...
think more logically Pat Ferrick--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Requests to "think more logically" just demonstrate to me that you do not understand the core Wikipedia policies of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and VERIFIABILITY. You claim the Spanish Empire did not exist before 1768. It doesn't matter two hoots what you think, it's what reliable sources say. For example, in the "Spanish Empire" entry of [The Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism http://books.google.com/books?id=uyqepNdgUWkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historical+Dictionary+of+European+Imperialism#PPA581,M1] it says "Although the Kingdom of Castile reached the Canary Islands in 1402, the real beginnings of the Spanish Empire did not come until 1492..." I note you are a new contributor to Wikipedia, you need to understand the policies. So please read them - now. Arguments from logic are not acceptable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
haha you know what the funny thing is ? altough you are telling me that this is "original research or my thoughts" im getting some details from the Spanish Empire article of the Spanish section! ,[1]
its not what IM thinking , its the FACTS!
the very same facts which you seem to not know of or try to put away!
Be reasonable and think logically this will let you write better and let you ACCEPT the real history, i seriously dispute your neutrality and this is a rule of wikipedia , be neutral!, like you said : wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit , but not everyone should--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Now you're just ranting. Please read Wikipedia's policies: the fact that the Spanish Wikipedia says one thing is neither here nor there. Wikipedia articles (in any language) are not admissable as a reference for other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, the verifiability would be circular. I've been editing Wikipedia for several years now and I am fully aware of the policies. You, on the other hand, are clearly not aware. So please take a moment to read them - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR - and remember that Wikipedia is not an extension of the school you just graduated from, where you are free to come to your own conclusions in the papers that you write. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
yes but the information im getting from the spanish empire article in spanish has veriafable sources , and they are in spanish which i'll translate to you for free (lol) : "En 1768 el informe de Croix habla de "uniformar el gobierno de estas grandes colonias con el de su metrópoli". Siendo el primer documento conocido que redefine los reinos de "Indias" como "colonias"."
This piece of text is basically saying to organize the overseas territories in a colonial way. This is what an empire is , the lands from 1492-1768 weren't , so portuguese colonies should be included if Aragonese , or Hasburg inheritance lands are --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
ok what about this map then : thumb|400px An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1975). Red - actual possessions; Pink - explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty .
I had a TINY trouble uploading this file into the Spanish Empire Article , but now i think i figured out and the new map is shown , i hope i didnt mess anything up :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
OK! now i have a BIG problem! im trying to upload the image where it shows Hawaii as sphere of influence but not the azores and madeiras islands which were portuguese ! but i dont know how to do it, im so fu***ng frustrated ! can anybody help? this is the right image : thumb|400px--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the position of user Red Hat is unacceptable. Anyone knows, anyone with some good knowlegde of History that the position of Europeanhistoryteacher is right. Secondly he is provinding sources. The obsession of Red Hat with this article and his attempts can be classified as Sophistry. Sophistry is one of the worst things in Wiki, the manipulation of language and concepts to obscure things. The repeated attempts at saying that Portugal was never under Spanish Rule is absurd (whatever name we want to give to it, kingdom, personal union, empire, whatever), the attempts at trying to say that Portugal was under Spanish rule but not the rest of its territory or colonies at the time is even more ridiculous. I support Eurohistoryteacher and think user the REd Hat is more than biased and a lot of users have already discussed the same issue with him, showing their disagreement. So, who is this guy, the owner of this article?. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.116 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
infoBox?
why don't we add a infobox again ?
it can be very helpful for the reader and it gives the article more sense of cleaness in my view , so why not ? here is a start
I agree that an Infobox should be included. Also, I think the last version of the map is much better than the previous one (It was wrong and confusing to have the "European" territories in a different color). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.20.100 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
The first Global Empire was Portugal.
In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4(or 5) Continents and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5(or 6) Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate, and proclaiming nominal domain on the west Papua(New Guinea) in 1526. And the first in some subcontinents.
Honestly i would say Portugal wasn't the first global empire, first Portuga was more of a entrepreneur and not a colonial empire unlike Spain , also Portugal armies and navies werent as strog as the ones of Spain , another thing , Spain had the first GLOBAL currency and unlike Portugal it was the first to acquire real territories , Portugal just had small forts along the coasts of the land they "conquered", greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong Portuagl had entire dominion
In my opinion the position of user Red Hat is unacceptable. Anyone knows, anyone with some good knowlegde of History that the position of Europeanhistoryteacher is right. Secondly he is provinding sources. The obsession of Red Hat with this article and his attempts can be classified as Sophistry. Sophistry is one of the worst things in Wiki, the manipulation of language and concepts to obscure things. The repeated attempts at saying that Portugal was never under Spanish Rule is absurd (whatever name we want to give to it, kingdom, personal union, empire, whatever), the attempts at trying to say that Portugal was under Spanish rule but not the rest of its territory or colonies at the time is even more ridiculous. I support Eurohistoryteacher and think user the REd Hat is more than biased and a lot of users have already discussed the same issue with him, showing their disagreement. So, who is this guy, the owner of this article?. Jan.
"Jan" no disrespect to anybody specifically Ferrick, but some users tend to see the article as their own , which is clearly against wikipedia rules , in reality wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit in a freely manner (with sources of course) without opposition as the kind that Ferrick is showing here , for more information own .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I own this article - I hardly wrote any of it, in fact. I'm just trying to make sure that all changes to it are verifiable, which your changes to the map were not, because you have still have provided absolutely no references for it. Anyway, time will tell if you are a sockpuppeteer - I've requested a check on you. If I'm wrong, then I will of course apologise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly sockpuppetry going on at this article talk page. I would just like to point out that this is against Wikipedia policy, and anyone who engages in it will get blocked, and ultimately banned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The only one that should be blocked is you. I have nothing to do with other users in this discussion page, so watch your language and prove things before you accuse others. Your dictatorial approach is unacceptable. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.116 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jan here , we need somebody else instead of Ferrick here , someone more lenient and who has a little more insight into this subject , one question is there anyway to replace or ask for another admin for Red Hat Ferrick?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
User Red Hat continues threatening people. He should be stopped or reported. I will not engange anymore in any type of edit war. I bet that he will do. I encourage other users to keep an eye on this guy. My position is already clear. Support Euroteacher. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.116 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Ferrick in case you want to blame me again for sock puppetry , save your words its not me , not even this time or the first time ok? thank you very much!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Aren't you are admin of something? you are the only one blocking the release of the correct information on the SE article .
yes people come and go because after a while they get tired of discussing with you and just leave , you are clearly a hispanophobe no doubt about that , you just can't accept the facts , im not going to waste my time explaining this subject (which i clearly dominate over you), i think you are the kind of person who's hobby is to read books about this topic and now you think you own the TRUTH , well..not exactly friend , you are not the only one who knows about this , and you should be more open to other's opinion and facts .im done arguing with you , i read the many correct sources people has given you over the past months and you dont want to accept them , well what can i say? remember the neutral point of view ok? bye --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
EuroHistoryTeacher, the sources that you claim to be "correct" may be "correct" by your point of view, but not to the point of view of others who have also provided sources against your claims.
XPTO (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Disputed Tag for Map/Global Empires
The map which has stood for over a year has been altered without any references provided. As I would be violating the 3RR rule I will not attempt to revert it any more tonight. If no references are forthcoming, I will raise the matter on the original research noticeboard.
Problems with the map (there may be more, this is just my observation):
Nagasaki/Deshima is marked as a Spanish colony - it was not.
Sabah is marked as a Spanish colony - it was not.
Hawaii, a large portion of Cambodia, Hainan Island, parts of Borneo and New Guinea, are marked as "explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty or very short-held territory". Apart from being an overly broad category, these claims are highly dubious.
Nagasaki/Deshima : the spanish Jesuit missions , established themselves in Nagasaki converting many japanese into christians , but yes you are right this was not a spanish colony by fact , i will definitely change that , thanks for pointing it out .
Sabah : The spaniards builded many forts in Sabah and immense trade was going there , especially after Portugal became part of Phillip's II dominion .
Hawaii : these archipelagos were discovered to the western world by the spanish explorer Lobo and the spaniards sometimes would stop on their way to Manila in Hawaii and trade with them .
Cambodia : in the 1860's a Franco-Spanish expedition landed in Cambodia/Southern Vietnam to punish the Kingdom there for mistreating christian converts , the spaniards were so satistified with the treaty that abolish the mistreament of converts , that they demanded no land (unlike the french) , also in previous centuries many spanish conquistadors landed there and explored it or to reach chinese cities on the north .
Borneo/New Guinea : the spanish builded forts and bases there as a "pit stop" from the american mainland to Asia , most notably the Philippines and from there on to China .
Regarding sources, you need to provide maps in reliable sources to demonstrate that this is not your own original research. It's not up to you to decide what constitutes a claim, a sphere of influence, or an area of trade and then colour in a particular area of the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
They must be reliable sources. This means no self-published websites (ie personal websites that someone just uploaded themselves to the internet) and no Wikipedia maps, in any language (wikipedia is not admissable as a reference for itself). The link you posted above is a self-published website. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes its self-published...just like wikipedia , except here more people help in publishing it :)
facts are facts , if i publish london is the capital of england , thats a fact...and SELF-PUBLISHED , of course there are additional sources to back you up , and im finding sources for you , so just be patient and please stop saying im publishing original research--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I think Euroteacer shows an excellent knowlegde of what he or she is doing. Keep up your good work. Again, to try and show a map that coincides fully with the present Spanish speaking countries in South America is ridiculous and risible, just to mention one exmaple of the quality of the map that stood before. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.158.66 (talk • contribs)
Who says so? Just stick to facts and forget about anything else. Jan.
EuroTeacher, with all respect You write what you want, the truth is another thing and the chronology demonstrates it(of course you are right in major and many things and You know many about these matters, but wrong in others in my view). of course Spain became a more larger and powerful empire as Britain(even more global) after.
So was also Britain the first global empire, with missions-establishments and oficial claims in Antartica?! maybe.
I am talk about of the chronological relative expansion of the empire. Was Portugal, first, chronology(in that sense, not any other).
However it may be that the Spanish Empire, with more population and resources and dominios in Europe out of Peninsula (that Portugal did not have beyond its own european Population, territory and Atlantic archipelagoes) and its gradual advance in the North America and is part of Oceania for the half part that fit to it in the treat of Tordesillas/Zaragoza-Elvas etc., became the dominant global force in the second half of XVI century and XVII, by the power in Europe above all, including Portugal for some time in the sphere of the crown of the Habsburgs(maybe this is the first "global" Peninsular empire), maybe for this questions, the Portuguese Empire Edditors (You or others or you and others) don´t have that kind of statement in the first phrase and we understand.
The Indian Ocean was a Portuguese Lake, for a few years yes, but was, as the major part of Atlantic, with 22 cities in west coast of India, more than half Ceylon, Oman(Muscat and all major cities and fortresses in Oman - Arabia Peninsula), Bahrein(Arabian p.), Queshem and Ormuz in Persian coast, part of today Emirates(Arabian Peninsula) and from Brazil to Moluccas, Macau and Deshima enclave,cities in Maylasia, forst in Sumatra and Java. For some years the thalassocracy was total with expeditions to the coasts of the Sinai, against the still incipient but increasing Turkish positions in Egypt(its fleet in particular) and attempts for
one year in Basrah(Iraq) etc.
Empire:
EUROPE(EUROPEAN and AFRICAN OCEANIC PLATE)
PORTUGAL - Continent; Azores; Madeira(Selvagens)
Portuguese CEILON (1518-1658)
Half Island, all west to the interior and part of the east.
MALDIVES(1518-1521, 1558-1573)
CHINA:
Macau(1515 - 1557-1999)
JAPAN:
Deshima(Nagasaki)-(1571-1639)
ASIA, AUSTRALASIA and OCEANIA
MALAYSIA:
Malacca(1511-1641)
INDONESIA(and PAPUA):
Forts in Sumatra
Flores Island (XVI-XIX)
Makassar(1512-1665)
Bante (XVI-XVIII)
Moluccas(Maluku):
(1512 - Discovery - Amboin 1576-1605, Ternate 1522-1575, Tidore 1578-1650)
EAST TIMOR(1642-1975):
Discovery-1512-1517
process of Independence -Indonésia -Timor Timur (1975-1999)
"Protectorate" UN(1999-2002)
NORTH AMERICA
CANADA:
Newfoundland
Factory(1501--1503)
Only Claims of Nominal Possession of LABRADOR and TERRA NOVA by the King (1501-1570) - Terras del Rey de Portugal - Colony established by João Alvares Fagundes(It lasted 3 years after 1521) in Newfoundland.
SOUTH AMERICA
BRAZIL(1500-1822)
BARBADOS- a Factory (1536-1620)
URUGUAY:
Nova Colónia do Sacramento (1680-1777)
Cisplatine Province (1808-1822) - Ocupation
(Expantion of Portuguese Brazil and Empire of Brazil)
Change between Portugal and Spain many times.
FRENCH GUIANA (1809-1817)Conquest and ocupation.
(to complete)
-Both the Iberian ones had made the deed.
I agree on this one with this user. Therefore I think that "one of the first global empires" is better than "the first global empire", since the role of Portugal was very important too and preceded Spain in the Atlantic voyages around Africa, etc. Anyway, the main problem here, in my opinion, is the map. I support Euroteacher on that one. By the way I do not see the pink colours nor the areas of the Portuguese colonies between 1580 and 1640 that should be also included. Anyway, that´s my two cents. Good luck. Jan.
Yes maybe i agree with you , i think we should put in BOTH articles something like this : "and one of the first global empires" .
But look at this , Spain had colonies/territories/lands in the 6 POPULATED continents , yet maybe the Iberian Union , that is to say the incoorporation of the portuguese monarchy and EMPIREinto the spanish one , made Spain (or Portugal maybe) the first global empire.
Also let's start thniking about including the portuguese imperial territories into the Spanish map , because this is what happened unlike some other users like Pat Ferrick who engage in sophistry , Portugal even had a SPANISH Viceroy FOR GOD'S SAKE!!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dear Euroteacher, the Viceroy (that had to be by law of the royal family or tied, Spanish, Italian etc.) formaly represented the King and his personal authority, government and the Crown of the Habsburgs in the Kingdom, He/She did not represent Castile, nor Aragon nor represented Spain, - and the Castilians, Aragonese(Spanish)Navarrese - or German or other European were forbidden and hindered to occupy Admin. positions in any territory of the Portuguese empire.
Of course "Spain" - Spain itself was the major power in 1580-1640.
Note: about the British although Antarctica was also "continent", not populated in those times, maybe.
Portugal was the first global in one sense and Spain was the first global in another sense (explanation above) both senses in my -and others I Believe - view.
However it may be that this Iberian or "Hispanic"(old sense of the name) Peninsular Crown(1580-1640) Portugal and Spain was maybe the first globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
"Spain" in modern sense as official name in a official unitary formal State only exists after 1715 with the Nueva Planta of Felipe V, until this date, Castile, Aragon and Navarra and other States had had its proper borders, proper currency, autonomous Justice and its own sovereignty as Aragon for example (where nor the King or local troops of Castile couldn´t intervine). So it did not had formal representative of Castile or Aragon or Flandres in Portugal between 1580-1640, but of the King.
I've reverted the map to the version which has stood for over a year, and added the references used for it. I dispute the version you created, both the accuracy of it (Borneo was never Spanish) and the verifiability (colouring the whole of Cambodia). If you persist in readding it, I shall take it to the original research noticeboard. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Wrong done. I support Euroteacher map. So please, go back to his version. I hope people can see The red Hat behaviour. Jan.
Sorry Patrick , you are engaging in sophistry and also you DO NOT OWN this article or ANY other article on wikipedia , so im going to revert your innaccurate edits . Yes you have provided sources and so the thousands of users who are against you but your dictator-like behavior has driven them off the article .
Look in YOUR userpage , the british empire article or this one here , you are being told by MANY (not just me) about your behavior , you do not own or command people .
Many users have provided sources against yours , so why should your view be the only one shown even though is false/biased?
Im also going to report you if you don't apologize for accusing me 2 (!!) times of sockpuppetry--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Red Hat Pat Ferrick behavior/sources for User : XPTO
User red Hat Ferrick tries to confuse people by showing them his biased knowledge (nationalism) and sophistry is not allowed in wikipedia . He has been approached by many users who accuse him of ownership issues , which i also believe . He acts like a dictator around any article he thinks he knows about , and he does not want to show the facts on the articles . He is now claiming that the map i made is "original research" and he is about to report me . He has also NOT apologized after numerous times of calling me a sockpuppet which im clearly NOT.
He believes because work is not "verifiable" (even though it is) should not be included in the article .
He thinks that Cambodia and southern Vietnam were not spanish claims of sovereingty.
well it is and i have already proven it , the franco-spanish expedition of the mid-1800's (see Cochinchina campaign) in Indochina was so widely followed in Spain where it has now entered vernacular . Spanish-speaking people today say when (referring to something that is very far ) : esta mas lejos que en la cochinchina (old name for Indochina/Cambodia) , meaning that is "farther than in the conchinchina" .
So who is this kid? a dictator that he thinks he owns the truth AND the article?! he has been told (and you people can look it up in his userpage) by many wiki editors about his rude and dictator-like behavior and about sophism , which apperently he can't understand . He wants to artificially shrink the size of the spanish empire . His point of view is NOT neutral , and this is clearly against the rules...--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
People who continue to make personal attacks get temporarily blocked from editing, and if they persist after that, permanently blocked. So you can continue down that path and get blocked, or you can stop - your choice. Regarding Cambodia and Vietnam - do you really think that a saying in Spanish is evidence that Spain claimed sovereignty of those areas? Judging by your comments here and some of your edits (where you add information without references), you still have not read WP:V, have you? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you serious ?? who attacked me first? the first day i came here you accuse me of sockpuppetry (which you still havent apologized about and i didnt report you for being a nice fellow editor).
Did you actually read my commment? the legacy of the Cochinchina campaign is still widely see in Spain .
Read about the Cochinchina Campaign , Tthis ancient Kingdom that defended itself against the hispano-french expedition comprised over parts of Cambodia and Vietnam , i also gave you a source which you dont want to accept. We don't need a big discussion over this , its a fact even though you have never read/heard about it. I dont need a encyclopedia to tell me when WW2 started , so why do you need one to inform you about the Cochinchina campaign ? its a fact , like it or not.
Now that i explained this Cambodian-Viet issue, which im sure you will try to debunk (fruitlessly , because facts are FACTS) , lets move on to the next question...what else do you need to know that you lack the information about? Borneo?Sabah?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
My problems with the map are as follows.
Bucketing "trade, exploration and claims" into one colour is downright misleading. Which area is which category? It's impossible to tell. Normally, in history books, arrows are used to depict exploration and trade routes. So I propose explorations and trade routes are dropped entirely from the map.
What is that sliver of pink territory sticking out of Spanish Sahara?
Why do the borders of Spanish Guinea not line up with the present-day borders of Equatorial Guinea? What reference did you use for this?
I have never, ever, in my life seen anything that suggests Spain claimed Cambodia or Southern Vietnam. A military expedition alongside France or a saying in Spanish is not the same as claiming anything. You need to provide references that show Spain claimed these areas - ie a reference that reaches the exact same conclusion.
What are those areas shaded on Borneo and New Guinea?
Why is such a huge portion of Formosa shaded?
Why is such a huge swathe of Brazil shaded? Most maps I see don't attempt to place any Amazonian border at all on Spanish claims/sovereignty in the early history of Iberian Latin America, because noone had any idea of where that border existed - they had not mapped the interior of the Amazon to that level of specificity. So, you will often see historians place a line indicating the Tordesillas Treaty, they will shade the regions that Spain actually settled and administered, and will leave it at that. That is a much more sensible and realistic approach.
Why is the entirety of the Caribbean shaded, when Spain did not actually settle all the islands - why are some not pink?
What led you to shade that size of present-day Alaska/jutting into Canada?
I am not saying everything above is necessarily incorrect, I am asking you to tell me what sources you used to decide which areas to shade - ie I am challenging your material and per WP:V, as the editor adding material, you need to provide references "or it will be removed".
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Here we go AGAIN Ferrick ... im going to answer for the last time to your q's and i hope you are satisfied , if you are not it doesnt matter but you cannot keep a FAKE/INCORRECT map like the one you keep putting up :
1."Bucketing "trade, exploration and claims" into one colour is downright misleading. Which area is which category? It's impossible to tell. Normally, in history books, arrows are used to depict exploration and trade routes..."
This is EXACTLY like the portuguese empire map says , so i copied it to make european colonial articles more equal , so if you are going to complain (in purpose) about this then go switch it too in the Portuguese empire article.
2."What is that sliver of pink territory sticking out of Spanish Sahara?"
Its the Adrar Emirate , which was a spanish protectorate from the late-1800s until the early 1900s when it became part of the French sub-saharan colonial empire .
The spanish explorer Cervantes signed a treaty with those sub-saharan tribes which made Spain responsible for the emirate's safety (protectorate).
Perhaps i should color it red , just like the british empire has protectorates in brown .
Thanks for the heads-up.
3."Why do the borders of Spanish Guinea not line up with the present-day borders of Equatorial Guinea? What reference did you use for this?"
My mistake , i have no idea why i colored them , probably by mistake . Sorry.
4."I have never, ever, in my life seen anything that suggests Spain claimed Cambodia or Southern Vietnam. A military expedition alongside France or a saying in Spanish is not the same as claiming anything..."
O.K. first lets say something very important : BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T SEE OR KNOW something doens't necessarily mean its false or incorrect , remember you don't know everything (like a normal human being).
It was not known as "Cambodia or Southern Vietnam" , it was a independent Kingdom that was basically Indochina , read about the Nguyen Dynasty for more info.
For 3 years spanish (also french) troops were battling for control of some provinces, the expedition took off from Manila in 1858 with about the same amount of troops in both sides (french & spanish/filipino) and also the same amount of warships (Spain was the third naval power in this era).This can be included in the pink coloring for sure , i dont know why would you oppose . Under exploration it seems ok .
5."What are those areas shaded on Borneo and New Guinea?"
Look fast sources :
The term New Guinea was applied to the island in 1545 by a Spaniard, Yñigo Ortiz de Retez, because of a fancied resemblance between the islands' inhabitants and those found on the African Guinea coast.
In 1545 the Spaniard Yñigo Ortiz de Retez sailed along the north coast of New Guinea as far as the Mamberamo River near which he landed, naming the island 'Nueva Guinea'. The first map showing the whole island (as an island) was published in 1600 and shows it as 'Nova Guinea'.
6.Why is such a huge portion of Formosa shaded?
What do you mean? Only half the island is shaded...
7."Why is such a huge swathe of Brazil shaded? Most maps I see don't attempt to place any Amazonian border at all on Spanish claims/sovereignty in the early history of Iberian Latin America..."
See Henry Karmen's book "How Spain became a world power :1492-1763" , in the map section they show a very accurate map of spanish territory in sotuh america (not the torsedilla border).
8."Why is the entirety of the Caribbean shaded, when Spain did not actually settle all the islands - why are some not pink?"
Yes a second right for you :)
Not all the carribbean islands were settled but most were and ALL claimed , the carribbean islands were for a time mostly spanish-dominated.
We should show only the settled islands in red and the rest in pink , but ALL carribbean islands have to be colored.
9."What led you to shade that size of present-day Alaska/jutting into Canada?"
Well...what led me? sources , facts and a good-faith edit so i can make this article better for the reader.
You ever heard about the Lousiana extension? when Spain received the territory from France it strechted from the mouth of the mississippi (New orleans) going up and in the canadian territory (which was not part of UK empire yet) so it was spanish , in 1800 France got it back from Spain and sold it to the US in 1803 , the US then in the convention of 1818 ceded the canadian part of the lousania territory to the UK.
Also the Nootka territory and Oregon belonged to Spain before it was british .
Oregon itself comes from the spanish name Orejon which means "Big-ear" , a reference to the native americans who apparently had big ears (artificial enlargement).
The nootka territory was vancouver island (where a spanish fort was builded) and also included territory (in continental land) in the western portion of (soon to be) British Columbia.
"I am not saying everything above is necessarily incorrect, I am asking you to tell me what sources you used to decide which areas to shade - ie I am challenging your material and per WP:V, as the editor adding material, you need to provide references "or it will be removed". "
You have not provided a SINGLE reliable source here. Do you understand what a reliable source is? It is a reference, it is not you explaining what you consider the facts to be - that is your own original research. I have repeatedly asked you to read WP:OR and WP:V but you clearly have not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"It is a reference, it is not you explaining what you consider the facts to be - that is your own original research"
Ok you can go research and read the books, its not what i "consider the facts to be" , they are facts you can google them or go to your library tomorrow , have fun reading!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
In return, I promise to present a general compromise proposal within the next 24 48 hours to adjust our map-related differences — at least provisionally until Ogre's map. Do I have your agreement on this, EuroHistoryTeacher and Pat? SamEV (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Which "issue" are you referring to - the problem of inclusion of Portuguese colonies, or the issues I raise above about original research on the pure-Spanish Empire map? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Hmm. Not a particularly honorable move, in my opinion. But I hope it all turns out well, anyway.
Btw, the 24 48-hour deadline will begin when I hear from EHT, since it's conceivable that he'll return with sources and/or changes to his map, which I'll have to study. So I may not begin working on my proposal till then. SamEV (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pat, you've told me how the issue between you and me was different from the new one over EHT's map. You've even asked me repeatedly to say so on the OR noticeboard! You agreed to treat it separately, and told me you'd put the Iberian Union map in the lead, and protested when I suggested that you were going back on your word. So when I spoke of a "general" adjustment, it was merely in the sense that I was going to address the concerns over EHT's map, and that at the same time we'd put the issue of the Portuguese colonies away as we agreed. So I find it less than honorable for you to go back on something of which you assured me twice in recent days. But I'm willing to forget about those assurances. Just wanted you to know that I wasn't using words loosely. SamEV (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Red Hat's behaviour and positions are being disclosed. I doubt very much that he is a good will user. To say things like that Kamen's book is not a reliable source etc, is unacceptable. He should be banned. Users like this one do a lot of damage to this site. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
then scroll down to where it says "Vice Royalty of Peru , ca 1650."
You will find areas of Brazil as being spanish.
I think this is the only reference you need , as for the rest what confuses you?
"The Convention respecting fisheries, boundary, and the restoration of slaves between the United States and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, also known as the London Convention, Anglo-American Convention of 1818, Convention of 1818, or simply the Treaty of 1818, was a treaty signed in 1818 between the United States and the United Kingdom. It resolved standing boundary issues between the two nations, and allowed for joint occupation and settlement of the Oregon Country, known to the British and in Canadian history as the Columbia District of the Hudson's Bay Company, and including the southern portion of its sister fur district New Caledonia.The treaty marked the last territorial loss of Continental United States (the northern tip of the territory of Louisiana above the 49th parallel)."
I second SamEV's call for a cease fire while the details of this map in question are being clarified. Please, Red Hat and EuroHistoryTeach, stop reverting the revertions of the revertions of the revertions etc. You are extremely close to violating the 3RR, and you are both very intelligent people. Wikipedia can't afford to lose editors like you who are so passionate, so please, stop reverting each others edits, to avoid getting blocked, and let's try to figure this out peacefully! NightFalcon90909 (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The first source says "Captain Cervera, who in 1886 concluded with the Emir at 'Ijil a treaty by which, had it been ratified, Spain would have been recognised as the sovereign of the whole Adrar at-Tmarr." So the treaty was not even ratified? The second source merely mentions the Treaty without saying what was in it. Neither of these sources explicitly come to the same conclusion that you are doing on the map, so you are engaging in synthesis. Furthermore, this source from 1901, which includes a map, says [67] "The following year (1886) they pushed into the interior and signed a treaty with the people of Adrar, but they did not inform the European powers of the treaty. In successive years Adrar was overrun by French explorers and thus fell under French influence." And how did you decide what area to shade? In all the maps of the "Scramble for Africa" that I have seen, I have NEVER seen this shaded as Spanish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Cambodia/Southern Vietnam - provide a reference please.
ok Spain never formally claimed these areas even though the french insited in Spain claiming a sphere of influence but they had military presence , so it can go under the category of "exploration" or "trade" (spanish had been engaging in indochina as jesuits missions and trade routes went up that way before 1858) in pink.
book A Gambling Style of Government: The Establishment of the Chartered Company's: "...problem was to remove his holdings in Sabah from any Spanish claim, as part of Sulu territory..." --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Explorers named lots of places. The Dutch named parts of Australia. It does not necessarily mean anything. But my main problem here is - how did you decide which areas of Borneo to shade? None of these sources are maps. (Also as I have told you, self published websites [68] and Wikipedia articles (Castile War) are NOT acceptable sources). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Formosa - "only" half? Provide a reference that Spain controlled half of Formosa.
The Dutch and Spaniards established more lasting settlements, the Dutch at An-p'ing in southwestern Taiwan in 1624, the Spaniards in 1626 at Chi-lung in the north. Until 1646, when the Dutch seized the Spanish settlements, northern Taiwan was under Spanish domination, the south under Dutch control. - Britannica Online Academic Edition
The Spanish, not to be outdone by the Dutch, sent a fleet north from Manila, drove out the Japanese pirates, and established forts and a mission at Keelung and at Tamsui. The Dutch attempted to evict them, and in 1642 their second expedition eliminated the Spanish interests. - George H. Kerr, Far Eastern Survey, Institute of Pacific Relations.
Thus, after the Dutch had seized the main Spice Islands in 1605, the Spanish, based on the Philippines, hit back and recaptured Tidore and part of Ternate. - Peter Brightwell, The English Historical Review, Oxford University Press --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Also I happened on something else in that article, which I am not going to discuss now, but I will include it none-the-less:
In 1580, after seizing the opportunity provided by a disputed succession, Spain also acquired the Portuguese monarchy and the overseas empire which went with it. This gave Spain an Atlantic seaboard much more extensive than the one she had previously possessed; and the importance of this acquisition in strategic terms can best be expressed by noting that the provisional decision to send the Armada against England was taken soon after Philip got back from Portugal; and that much of the preparatory work was done at Lisbon, whence the Armada eventually sallied.
THIS IS WHAT A PREVIOUS USER TOLD YOU ABOVE ABOUT SPANISH PRESENCE IN TAIWAN AND YOU DONT WANT TO ADMITED , SO YOU MAKE ME SHOW YOU THE REFERENCES AGAIN! PURE SOPHISM!
I have replied above. You have answered some of my points acceptably. But others you have not, and you continue to engage in original research. Also, please do not remove the tag from the map whilst this is being discussed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
2."The following year (1886) they pushed into the interior and signed a treaty with the people of Adrar, but they did not inform the European powers of the treaty. In successive years Adrar was overrun by French explorers and thus fell under French influence."
(:)Yea so you see , they did signed the treaty which wasnt recognized by euro powers , but Spain was there as sovereign of the emir of Adrar. The protectorate became french in the early 1900s.
"And how did you decide what area to shade? In all the maps of the "Scramble for Africa" that I have seen, I have NEVER seen this shaded as Spanish."
(:)Take a look at the Adrar province in Mauritania , it looks as to what i have colored.
I know you havent seen it and i didnt until University . Highschools book are not the best of references Patrick.
4."So what? Spain, Britain and France were "there" in Mexico during the French intervention in Mexico, that does not mean historians say that Mexico was part of the French or British overseas empires."
No you can't compare it like that , that's original research.
It was a WAR , Spain and France in one side and the Nguyen Empire in the other .
The war started when 2 spanish missionaries were executed .They took off from Manila (spanish filipines) and for 3 years , Spain and France battled for some provinces in Indochina.
France pressured Spain to get some sphere of influence or lands or whatever like the french did. Thats how the french empire started in Indochina . Im not saying this was part of the spanish empire , thats why is in pink under exploration/trade/claims of sovereignty (just like the portuguese Empire has in its article)
5."But my main problem here is - how did you decide which areas of Borneo to shade? None of these sources are maps."
(:)I think this is your only problem .
Look at the information in the page . They say what parts were explored by the spaniards or where they landed.
Castille War , i know but its very hard to find it , but i will when i come back just to satisfy your doubts .
6."...but showing ...would be nice."
(:) yes but if it says the NORTH/NORTHEN PART , why do you need a map? dont you know your directions??:D
Here's one for you : In 1580, after seizing the opportunity provided by a disputed succession, Spain also acquired the Portuguese monarchy and the overseas empire which went with it. This gave Spain an Atlantic seaboard much more extensive than the one she had previously possessed; and the importance of this acquisition in strategic terms can best be expressed by noting that the provisional decision to send the Armada against England was taken soon after Philip got back from Portugal; and that much of the preparatory work was done at Lisbon, whence the Armada eventually sallied.
I accept the first one except with a small modification : "claimed but not settled but with military presence" - or something like that, because there was a military presence in Alaska and southwestern Canada (British Columbia) and of course in Indochina .
Yes i agree with you here , Adrar to Pink.
Yes islands not settled to pink (but i thought i already did that) , oh well i'll do it again.
"Claimed" will suffice. For Cambodia, you need to provide a reference that explicitly reaches the same conclusion that it was claimed. At the moment it is synthesis (from WP:SYN: "Synthesis occurs when an editor puts together multiple sources to reach a novel conclusion that is not in any of the sources.") In this case, the "editor" is you, and the "novel conclusion" is that Spain "claimed" Cambodia. The original research tag is going to stay on that map until such time as you provide a reference or it gets removed. I am not going to compromise on this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok then , but it can go under "exploration" in pink so it doesnt matter .
If you object to this , then i won't show Indochina but i will include ALL portuguese colonies from 1580-1640.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
"If you object...then..." - This is not how Wikipedia works: you do not control the image. The only reason I have stopped reverting it is because someone politely asked us to stop reverting each other, so I did. It does not mean you now "control" the map. You will abide by the rules of Wikipedia and the consensus, and if we cannot gain a consensus then we will have to take it to dispute resolution, where questions of original research will be examined in detail. To answer your point, Cambodia was not an exploration either, you are just now making up history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt20:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I OWN articles?! excuse me look at YOU! in your own userpage , in this talk page or in the british empire talk page MANY users have told you that you have OWNERSHIP ISSUES.
Im just saying you should accept this Indochina issue (fact btw) or we should include the portguese empire in this article (something you dread) .
Nope , not making up anything , the spaniards were there--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
You might ask who has the ownership issues now (see WP:OWN#Comments where one of the signs of ownership is questioning people's qualifications to edit articles, as you repeatedly do with me). The bottom line is this. Until you provide a reference, the original research tag stays. If, after a certain period of time, a reference is not forthcoming, the material will be removed, per Wikipedia's policies (I will remove that area from the map). If you continue to revert to "your" version, I will take the matter to dispute resolution. The issue of the Portuguese colonies is a separate matter. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Is not because you are not "qualified" , but i just think you don't have enough knowledge about this particular subject.
For example you don't see me arguing to death or being a obstacle to progress in the British Empire article because i never quiet studied that subject so i restrict myself from making erronous comments , on the other hand i have a almost complete knowledge about this one , so it is easy for me to contribute.
"An almost complete knowledge"? Gosh, we are lucky to have such an expert here, aren't we. Unfortunately, even if you are the world's number one expert, it doesn't exempt you from Wikipedia's policies of having to provide reliable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes yes you are lucky , so you should bow down, listen and follow ok?haha
Anyways no , thats not what i meant. I meant something like a complete (UNI-average) knowledge on this.
You wont see me bashing people in areas of a particular subject which i dont really know (or understand) about , so one should study this subject here and THEN be fierce opposition , otherwise one makes himself look like a bafoon (not directed at you).
Thank you both for pretty much resolving this dispute.
Cochinchina is now the sticking point. I recommend a different color than red or pink and labelled "Military incursion", or some other name to that effect. SamEV (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
But that was a colonialist enterprise. And while it lasted, there was undeniably a Spanish influence in the area: and it's customary to depict spheres of influence in maps of empires.
A territory which has definitely been left out in the map is the Moluccas (or Maluku) archipelago, also known as the Spice Islands. Spanish presence dates back to the 1520's and 1540's, though it was formally occupied in 1606, lasting until the 1660's (the island of Siau until the 1670's). The islands with permanent Spanish presence in this period include the bigger Ternate island, Tidore island, as well as Halmahera, Morotai and the smaller Siau.
Regarding Cambodia, you are still engaging in original research by claiming that Spain had "influence" there. The facts are that there was a joint military incursion with France. That is all. Any other unsubstantiated claim or conclusion is original research. And show me ONE map of the Spanish Empire in a reliable source where this is coloured in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, EuroHistoryTeacher, before you understand, but self-published websites (of which colonialvoyage is an example) and other Wikipedia articles are NOT considered reliable sources. If you tell me which part of that you don't understand, I will do my best to explain it to you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Red Hat Ferrick understand something : NEVER ASSUME because you make an ASS-out of-U and-ME O.K.?
I ALREADY KNEW about the Moluccas/Ternate and Tidore islands , these were actually the fabled "spice islands".
They however lasted very short in the Spanish colonial enterprise.
"Nevertheless, until 1622 the Moluccas remained indirectly involved in Pacific affairs, largely as an outreach of the spanish presence in the Philippines."
"The Moluccas were spanish for a few decades, and Spain mantained its hold on Ternate of this group until 1663."
"The King of Borneo gave his dominions in vassalage to Governor Sande, and New Guinea had been claimed for Spain from very early by right of discovery"
should we paint all of the island (Nova Guinea) as claimed (in pink)? i think its a good idea.
Regarding Cambodia, you are still engaging in original research by claiming that Spain had "influence" there. The facts are that there was a joint military incursion with France. That is all. Any other unsubstantiated claim or conclusion is original research. And show me ONE map of the Spanish Empire in a reliable source where this is coloured in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Why so much revisionism here? why do you constantly try to shrink the size of the Empire?
Indochina was to be invaded and made a colony (divided between france/spain) in the 1860's but Spain FAILED to make anything out of it , it was a failed colonial enterprise, so why not show it?
Also in the late 1500's there was a attempt to conquer Indochina , the fleet sailed from Manila and the spaniards burned the capital and killed the newly elected cambodian king.
You clearly don't understand the difference between neutral point of view and verifiability, so if I were you I would read those pages I linked to before throwing them at other editors. I really have lost count of the number of times a new editor like you has cropped up and I have the same conversation over and over again (that was why I thought you were a sockpuppet of User:Red4tribe at first - my uphill struggle with you to get you to understand the policies is exactly the same one I had with him). And once more you still have not provided a map in a reliable source with this area shaded. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
O.K. look MOST maps in here (of the SE) won't show you places like British columbia or parts of alaska being spanish ,or even places like the Adrar emirate . Maps are not everything you know , just read or study Spanish History to the last word and you will find more information than 20 encylopaedias could give you. Maps are extremely hard to find on something very specific so i suggest you don't base all your knowledge on maps.
The problem with you is that you are very controlling of something , ownerships issues , plus you think you own the truth , which of course you dont...nobody does , some people are just better informed about certain subjects. You clearly want to shrink the size of other empires , like in the Dutch Empire you were doing some ridiculous things , i support User:Red4tribe because he was giving good sources .
Or for example the Iberian Union issue , you just don't want to accept that portuguese colonies belonged to spanish kings (and therefore to "Spain" in this case).
There are many issues with you and i don't think you should impose your bias view on everyone else , if you edit something and its wrong imagine how many readers worldwide would read your bias view? I actually became a editor after i was discussing with some welsh friend of mine, he actually argued based on wikipedia and he read Spain didn't had colonies in Oceania and Asia (or at least it wasn't fully explained)!so i decided to become a editor to fix many things , especially the map which was clearly wrong at every level, it was pure anglo-propaganda and you can't even deny it , for it was. And now I found out you were/are the force behind all this bias info , i already have provided sources, even though they are not the best of sources because is hard to find info on this Indochina issue .
Yes, we have established that you know virtually all there is to know about the Spanish Empire. Fortunately for the readership of Wikipedia, there are more stringent criteria for inclusion than "EuroHistoryTeacher studied it at university and says it's so so it must be true". How many times must I tell you that the Wikipedia policy is "verifiability, not truth". WP:V. Again, which bit of that do you not understand? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
No , i don't know everything about it and neither do you , but i actually took the time to study this subject in a much deeper level than you have.
Just because i say something it doesn't mean is true , that's exactly why i provide references (even though they are not the best of th best).
I understand wiki policy very good, no need to explain.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
OK , i made a new map showing New guinea in pink as it was claimed by right of discovery and also the molucca islands but i have removed Indochina as Ferrick says it lacks reference or sources...--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 13:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Spanish territory
this map looks really good EHT, but where is Charolais? the french territory adquired by spain in the Treaty of the Pyrenees? and the french comté should be a little more bigger... also why you excluded the portuguese overseas possesions from the spanish empire?
i can't understand a thing, why the territories of the holy roman empire are not included? the holy roman emperor was spanish(charles I), he always used the spanish language and he was the king of Spain, before being the emperor of the HRE.
from britannica:
The grandson of Ferdinand and Isabella became the most powerful ruler in Europe. He was Charles I of Spain, better known as the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. In the reign of Charles V, Spain became master of nearly half the world. Charles ruled Spain, Naples and Sicily, the duchy of Milan, and the Netherlands and was the imperial lord of Germany as well as of the New World
Thanks to Charles V and his son Phillip II of Spain, Spain became the most powerful empire in the 15th till the 17th centuries.
spain was a big enterprise with the holy roman empire under Charles V.(Charles I of Spain)
all the spanish territories goberned by spanish kings counts actually as spanish possesion, so the spanish king was the king of spain and he ruled mostly of Europe being the emperor of the HRE, also the most important battles of the spanish empire under Charles V(Pavía) (Mühlberg) (Nordlingen) were won by spanish troops and troops from the HRE as well.
IMO,somebody have to do a wiki-page of the Spanish Empire under the SPANISH KING Charles V The empire on which the sun never sets. it would be the three or the second most largest empire in the world, after the british.Cosialscastells (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Yea thanks :) i have fixed the France-comchte borders a little more and its more corret now than before.
Yes i was thinking of proposing something similar. I was thinking of including the HRE but in a different color and explaining it or just color the Haspsburg lands of Charles V (Carlos I of Spain) in Europe just as Phillip's II and his descendants territories are shown in europe as being part of a "Spanish State".
I do want to include the portuguese colonies during the Iberian Union , but too many hispanophobes are in the english wiki and they don't have a neutral point of view so they can't accept the real magnitude that was the Spanish Empire, the portuguese colonies were "spanish" for 60 yrs like it or not .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
include the HRE in other colour and explaining it is a nice idea though , and include as well the portuguese overseas territories, it does not have sense to include Portugal without its colonies.. or portugal never sailed around the world? please.. this is just ridiculus....the "spanish enterprise/empire" began with Charles I of Spain (Charles V) and was one of the greatest empires in the world. Cosialscastells (talk) 22:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
To Pat: a military force on the ground tends to be quite influential. (It's why it's used!)
And as Blueboar explained to you at the NOR noticeboard, an original map can be created by us if its purpose is to illustrate reliable information.
However, I agree with EHT's decision to remove Indochina.
Cosialscastells and EHT, maybe we should hold off on including the Portuguese colonies, because Ogre has promised to fix that.
To Infinauta: I agree about page protection if all we're getting is editwarring from these newly-arrived users. There's supposed to be a truce in place. I hope none of us chooses to enlist the help of edit warriors on this dispute. SamEV (talk) 22:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Cosialscastells, Philip II ruled a far larger empire than his father. But each of their articles should definitely contain a map of their worldwide domains. Currently, only Charles' has a map, and it's only of his European domains. SamEV (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I already knew it SamEV,Charles III of spain had a largest empire than philip's colonial empire the americas/asia. Charles I of Spain once said, in my empire the sun never sets :-)Cosialscastells (talk) 23:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I have to say, I'm not sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me there. But just in case you're still saying that Charles V's empire was larger, let me say that although Philip didn't rule the HRE, he did rule the Portuguese empire, which was much larger than the HRE. SamEV (talk) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC); 00:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
EHT, I think you should color in the Pacific Ocean, the "Spanish Lake", as so many sources call it, just as the Indian Ocean is on the Portuguese Empire map, since that ocean was similarly dominated by the Portuguese navy for a time.
EHT - I will tell you now that I oppose the addition of the Portuguese colonies, not on the basis of your totally incorrect accusations of hispanophobia, but on the basis that most historians go as far as saying that Portuguese colonies were ruled by the Habsburg monarch but not that they were "Spanish" per se. I have already listed plenty of maps and sources that back this up. Having said that, SamEV had a compromise proposal that I would be OK with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I will tell you now that I oppose the addition of the Portuguese colonies, not on the basis of your totally incorrect accusations of hispanophobia, but on the basis that most historians go as far as saying that Portuguese colonies were ruled by the Habsburg monarch, The habsburgs WERE SPANISH THATS WHY THEY ARE KNOWN AS SPANISH HABSBURGS.
the Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, the habsburg monarchy were spanish and austrian, the portuguese overseas territories were under the RULE OF SPANISH KINGS (HABSBURGS)!!!!
i agree with u samEV, but if you include all the territories of charles V in to the spanish crown, the spanish empire would be bigger.
Cosialscastells (talk) 00:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Cosialcastells: ok we have agreed to include the HRE in the Spanish Empire :)
SamEV : The northwestern part of Germany is colored because it was part of the Spanish Netherlands for a time , then the United Provinces lost it , shite i can't remember this part too good. I'll remove it if you want because i dont know where to find sources to show you but it was for sure a part of the spanish territories.
Yes thanks for the Rhine part , i'll color it later :)
Yes i was thinking of coloring the trade routes like in the Portuguese empire has it in blue...The pacific (acapulco via philippines) was a spanish lake for a time , and the atlantic too (spanish main, Northen europe atlantic coast, new world-europe routes , etcs.) . I'll make sure to color it .
One more thing SamEV we can't rely on The Ogre forever , he is really busy according to him and if i understand correctly he hasn't been around here for a WHILE now , so i suggest we break off and do our own thing , c'mon wikipedia has no rulers , we are all equal and we are entitled to our own knowledge and it is our duty to provide the readers with the info as fast as possible :)
Red Hat of Ferrick : i wasn't specifically talking about you but i see your own consience has revealed itself lol i guess i went fishing without bait and i caught me a fish eh? :)
Anyways yes funny those historians are not spanish ! they are english and dutch and portuguese! they have the most straight point of view ever! don't they?!
NO! the PE belonged to the SE , why do we show the Aragonese colonies and not the Portuguese colonies? this is bullshit to me , we should show all colonial and territorial lands that ever belonged to spanish kings who ruled over a united spanish state , therefore it was "spanish" .
Pat has said he'll keep his promise after all and put the Iberian Union map in the lead. And Ogre is a good-faith editor whom I trust. I too have felt that Pat was being less than reasonable on the issue of Portugal. But how about this: let's go with Pat and my idea of putting the two maps in the lead, the second being the Iberian Union map. Let's wait the rest of the month (and year) -- three weeks. If we don't hear from Ogre in that time, then I'd support you about including the Portuguese Empire the way you want to. ¿Trato?
About the HRE, I disagree completely. Although numerous sources say that Portugal and its empire were, despite their official status, de facto subordinated to Spain's interests, and many historians flat out state that they were part of the Spanish Empire, I've seen nothing like that in reagards to HRE.
Why don't you instead add the rest of North America to the claimed areas? As any source will show, North America was part of Spain's claim, both by Tordesillas, and perhaps even more importantly, by right of discovery. And Spain was able to keep out the other powers until the 17th century, and was the only country with any settlements in North America until then. So the de facto Spanish position was unmatched. SamEV (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Hold on a second here, SamEV. You can't suggest a compromise, have an editor agree to it, and then turn around and tell someone else that it's only going to last for three weeks. I am flabbergasted that you are doing this, and I withdraw my support for this compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Pat, EHT is ready to accept our compromise of the two maps as orignally agreed, without the three week limit I suggested. SamEV (talk) 02:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
SamEV , the spanish territories goberned by spanish kings (related centuries) count as spanish possesion!(at least those of Philip II),His father was the king of Spain and he ruled mostly of Europe being the emperor of Spain and the HRE together,the spanish empire have the same sense under Charles V & Phillip II. It doesn't have sense to add the territories of Phillip II and not to add those of Charles I, since they had the same "emprise", and both were kings of Spain. And the most important thing,SPAIN BECAME A POWERFUL EMPIRE UNDER CHARLES I , not under his son. Cosialscastells (talk) 12:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
In green: boundaries of Holy Roman Empire at the time of Charles V , and in red (within green boundaries) his personal possesions , which most of them would be passed to Phillip II and his descendants.
Bright pink: boundaries of Holy Roman Empire at the time of Charles V , and in red (within bright pink boundaries) his personal possesions , which most of them would be passed to Phillip II and his descendants and in light pink (within bright pink boundaries) the HRE that didn't belonged to Charles V per se.
that's ridiculous, you want some reference of charles V territories?
The Reign of Charles V, by William S. Maltby:
from the publisher:
As King of Spain during the mid-1500s, Charles V ruled the first truly global empire and was the greatest of all the Habsburg Emperors. He was responsible for, among other things, the conquests of Mexico and Peru and the consequent European influence on Latin America, the waning of the Renaissance, the religious transformation of Europe by the Protestant and Catholic Reformations, and the establishment of a Habsburg empire in Eastern Europe.
Also the book Imperial Spain, by J.H Elliot describes the rise and fall of the spanish empire under leaders such as Charles V.
This is an article about the SPANISH Empire. Not the Habsburg Empire. The SPANISH Empire. Show me one map in a reliable source which labels the entirety of the Holy Roman Empire as "Spanish Empire". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Did the Habsburg empire exist, or it was the Habsburg Monarchy? im not talking about the spanish empire under phillip II, Im talking about the spanish king Charles I and its possesions. GOD.. he ruled spain like his son . If you read some books of ur lovely author Henry Kamen, u will know that the spanish empire was an imperial emprise , including the habsburg and the possesions of the spanish kings. I can't find any map about the european & overseas possesions of Charles V, but every historian knows that the spanish empire began in the union of castile + aragon, and ruled by charles V the empire became the first global empire.
Anyway, someone could do an article of the habsburg empire under charles V and say why it isn't considered as spanish empire if thanks to charles I of spain/charles V Spain began to be one of the first global empires? Cosialscastells (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you missing some bolts in your head Ferrick ? there is no such a thing as a "Haspburg Empire", all that belonged to the kings belonged to the state, nobody is saying HRE belonged to "Spain", it belonged to Charles V , thats why in the HRE is in different color in the map, i think we should show it. If you think like that then there is no "spanish empire" from 1516 to 1700 according to your thinking right?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh c'mon!! that's the title of a BOOK , in european history there was NO SUCH A THING AS A "HAPSBURG EMPIRE"! the closest thing to that was the HRE and Spain's euro-territories. In european history no state EVER existed with the name of "Haspburg Empire" , D-O Y-O-U U-N-D-E-R-S-T-A-N-D??--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a title of a book? Just? By saying that you once more display a complete lack of understanding of the policy of verifiability. But you don't have to believe me: why don't you try searching for the term in Google Books to see how often it crops up? Here are two to get you started. [72][73] Not quite the know-it-all we thought we were, eh? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't you READ my comments?? I said no state in europe ever existed with the name of Haspburg Empire and correctly so , what you are showing me is like saying Bourbon Empire, no state such a Hapsburg Empire EVER existed .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Curious!. Pat has mentioned: «I maintain the view that the Habsburg Empire does not equate to the Spanish Empire» (27 November) and «This is an article about the SPANISH Empire» (12 December). On 9 November, I wrote in this page this «I will be interested in the difference between both empires is proven with sources, since that affirmation seems original research or synthesis and infringes verifiability; and for curiosity, I would like to know how on the one hand the Spanish empire was organized, and on the other hand Hapsburg empire, especially when the empire Hapsburg refers to Austria, Hungary, Bohemia...». Now Pat, himself, has put as reference a book [74] that establishes that the Hapsburg Empire refers to Bohemia, Hungary, Austria, but not to Spain. Then, really, the Spanish empire is not the same thing that the Habsburg empire, simply because they concern to geographical different areas, and therefore, I do not know has to do the Habsburg empire (in Austria) with the issue about whether Portugal belonged to the Spanish empire for 60 years. Trasamundo (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I totally disagree with the inclusion of Portugal and the Portuguese Empire in the map, the Portuguese Empire was ruled only by the Portuguese and separately from the Spanish Empire. The conditions set at the Cortes of Tomar by the Portuguese to recognize Philip as King of Portugal and accepted by him was to rule Portugal and his Empire independently from the Spanish Empire.XPTO (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey XPTO,have u ever heard about the Battle of alcantara? yes, when Spain won the battle and the crowns of both countries were personally united until 1640,yes!!! when portugal rebeled against the spanish for some reason.
why EHT can add the portuguese european territory and not their overseas possesions? because portugal belonged to the habsburg empire too? HAHAHAHAHAH LOL !!!
However, authors like the British historian Henry Kamen contend that these territories were never integrated into a Spanish state and instead formed part of the wider Habsburg possessions. Because of this, many historians use "Habspurg" and "Spanish" almost interchangeably when referring to the dynastic inheritance of Charles V or Philip II.
u british fanboys should know that Henry Kamen is a CLUELESShispanophobe historian. He said that Spain never existed till the XX century HAHAHHAHA, what about the Ispania of Strabo, the Spania of Artemidorus,the Hispania of Livy ; «Yo són I chomte d’Espanya que apela hom lo chomte de Barcelona» cronichles of Bernat Desclot (1256), the «Quatre reis que ell nomená d’Espanya, qui son una carn e una sang» of Ramón Muntaner (1265) (ESPANYA = Spain in catalan language)... stop believing in Kamen PROPAGANDA, all the spanish historians laughs at him. Also he lives in catalonia supporting the basque/catalonian nationalism. Cosialscastells (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
For XPTO, The sources that I have provided do not deny that Portugal ruled itself, also the kingdoms of Aragon, Castile... did so too. They, all of them, belonged to the domains of the king of Spain. Trasamundo (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Compromise
Pat, EuroHistoryTeacher, and I reached a compromise to put the Iberian Union map in the lead next to the current map, until Ogre produces his map. The caption on the Iberian Union map will state the fact that sources are divided over whether the Portuguese Empire was ruled by Spain during the Union. Opinions? SamEV (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Portugal had a certain independence inside the Empire, but this doesn't mean that it shouldn't form a part of the Spanish Empire. All the territories had autonomy: Aragon, Catalonia, Sicily, the Netherlands, even the American Viceroyalties. The King of Spain annexed Portugal and not upside-down. Please don't upload more wrong versions Cosialscastells (talk) 04:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll say yes JUST TO SEE HOW IT WOULD LOOK , but if i dont like it , can we switch it?
Like Cosialcastells says ALL TERRITORIES GOVERNED BY SPANISH KINGS HAD AUTONOMY, ALL HAD THEIR OWN CURRENCY , LAWS , CUSTOMS ETC, ALL OF THEM EVEN HAD SPANISH VICEROYS!!
what the hell makes portugal different?! they all belonged to a "spanish state" , portugal adopted the laws and customs and framework of the spanish monarchy when Phillip II became king , the portuguese even call this period of history the "spanish captivity"!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You ask: "if i dont like it , can we switch it?" Do you think that you are the boss here or something? And stop making arguments on the basis of logic. That is original research. You have to look at what the sources say and the conclusions drawn there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt17:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No im not the boss and i know CosialCastells won't like it either , stop twisting my intentions , don't be a snake.
I want to see first how it would look , otherwise why comprmise?!
why would you buy a car you never seen before ?! , a analogy--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I find EHT's request for a preview reasonable, and I hope Pat does as well.
On switching the map, I think the answer is "it depends". As much as I respect Ogre, I am concerned by the fact that he hasn't given updates on his progress. It would be unreasonable to advocate that we wait for him forever, so I think a reasonable time limit is definitely a good idea. Pat found my initial proposal of three weeks unacceptable. But how about a higher number? Again, it cannot be Pat's position that we wait, say, 6 months, let alone a year!
A preview is fine. However, let's be clear that this is a preview of THE compromise, not a stopgap-compromise-whilst-we-wait-for-Ogre. As long as we are clear about that, all is good. If Ogre ever decides to show up with his map, we can reopen the debate at that point, but for now, it's clear that he's not contributing to Wikipedia and therefore in all likelihood not making any maps.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I see no difference in it. Either way the issue will always be open to changes at every turn. It's the nature of Wikipedia. So I have no problem with what you just wrote. SamEV (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, there is a big difference if you place an arbitrary time limit on the life of the compromise. Of course Wikipedia is always open to changes at every turn, but saying that a compromise will stand for X amount of time after which another version (the version you happen to prefer) will be posted is not how WP works. (If I misunderstood you there, apologies). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The purpose of a time limit is to greatly lessen or eliminate the possibility of map-related edit warring by the signatories, while in the meantime negotiations for changes can continue as usual. Again, without a time limit, negotiations will continue anyway, but nobody is committed to *not* edit warring. Big difference. SamEV (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
A time limit tells dissatisfied users: 'whatever you don't like, don't worry. It's only temporary.' It gives them peace of mind. Otherwise, I believe, the tendency is to view the current condition as permanent, which increases anxiety and edit-warring. I see the value of a time limit as psychological. SamEV (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
It occurred to me that I did a poor job of explaining my 'time limit' idea, so let me clarify: what it entails is that we pledge not to unilaterally change the map for a set amount of time. Nothing more. SamEV (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
The two maps are up; if anyone hasn't, take a look.
They could also be displayed adjoiningly (like the images on infoboxes), with the captions at the bottom: instead of the current way, wherein each map is wholly separate. SamEV (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Gibberish
I'm not going to revert this again (today, anyway) as I don't want to violate 3RR. But this edit by EuroHistoryTeacher is (a) too much detail for an introduction (b) misleading and perhaps most importantly (c) total and utter gibberish [75]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
some sources
There's no such thing as "Iberian Union" or hispano-portuguese empire so don't do fake maps please. The portuguese empire belonged to the spanish kings, ill provide u interesting sources: (from a translated text of Transamundo)
Firsty because Spain was not a legal body, and secondly, that the policy of Portugal was tie to the policy and the decisions of the Court, that was in Madrid, not in Lisbon.
In the book España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada by 'John Huxtable Elliot at the university of Valencia (2002)
The monarchs who united crowns of Castile and Aragon tried to revive the old memory of a Roman or visigothic Hispania with the purpose of to promote a greater fidelity towards historically revived Spain.
This ideological feeling germinated with essentially Castilian the imperial policy of the House of Austria and that affected all patrimonial territories.
There where a component part of the compound monarchy is not only obvious superior to the other in being able and resources, but also it behaves as if it was it, the other parts will feel naturally that their identities are more and more under threat. This is what it happened to the Spanish Monarchy of century XVI and principles of the XVII, when the nonCastilian kingdoms and provinces were seen in clear and increasing disadvantage with respect to Castile. The contemptuous or threatening commentaries of Castilian located in high instances, like the iron Castilian control in the administration, after Madrid was converted in soothes of the court in 1561, brought about a deep restlessness more and more.
In spite of being a "constellation" of kingdoms, the Hispanic monarchy of the Austrias made attempts of administrative centralization.
AGAIN THE historian Elliot in the page 73 do a great reference:[[78]]
(translated to english):
At a higher level, the Council of State, noncomposed to a large extent, but always exclusively, by Castilian advisors, kept in reserve like last instance, at least nominal, of political coordination and decision making letter to the interests of the monarchy in his totality. This did not exist in the English compound monarchy of century XVII.
And i would like to comment the attempt of the Count-Duke of Olivares in institutionalizing and centralizing the monarchy, as therefore it explains in a directed memorial king Felipe IV: Count-Duke of Olivares:
«Tenga Vuestra Majestad por el negocio más importante de su Monarquía el hacerse Rey de España; quiero decir que no se contente con ser Rey de Portugal, de Aragón, de Valencia, conde de Barcelona, sino que trabaje por reducir estos reinos de que se compone España al estilo y leyes de Castilla sin ninguna diferencia, que si Vuestra Majestad lo alcanza será el príncipe más poderoso del mundo».
translated in english:
«Has Your Majesty by the most important business of its Monarchy; King of Spain ; I mean that one is not satisfied with being King of Portugal, Aragon, of Valencia, count of Barcelona, but he works to reduce these kingdoms of which Spain to the style is made up and laws of Castile without any difference, that if to Your it reaches it Majesty will be the most powerful prince of the world».
And this supposed to surpass the geographic notion of Spain, and to institutionalize it, but with an ideological support. To this we see it passage in the mentioned book of Manuel Tuñón de Lara (page 231), and again in the study of Elliot and Benitez (page 26)[[79]].
-----
It is not either necessary to despise this ideological feeling of Spain, because although sensu stricto Spain could be a mere geographic denomination, could not be statically thus until at the beginning of century XIX it appeared a Spanish nation by spontaneous generation, on the contrary must have an historical process sustained by an expansive ideology that made previously exist to Spain not like nation or political being, but like international power, therefore they reflect the diplomacy.
We put for example the Collecção dos tratados, convenções, contratos e actos publicos celebrados entre a coroa de Portugal e as mais potencias desde 1640 até ao presente', compilated by the writer José Ferreira Borges de Castro (1856), who in its page (377) link:
Another aspect that I want to put in clearly, is that Spain and Portugal and their respective empires formed a personal union. This really is not sustained, because:
It leaves the conception of a Spanish-Portuguese empire here, that already I have shown that did not exist: first because Spain was not a legal body, and secondly, that the policy of Portugal was tie to the policy and the decisions of the Court, that was in Madrid, not in Lisbon, as therefore it shows Elliot and Benítez to it in his study, that already I have mentioned.
Also this study say that Portugal was an independent country (independent separate country), since it had own administration, but is that also they had own administration like aeque to principaliter in Aragon, Flanders, in Milan, in Burgundy, in Naples, or Sicily.
J.H. Elliot, in divided Europe. 1559-1598, Ed. 21st century (1973) p 284-285 writes, (TRANSLATED):
remembered that the political and representative institutions of Portugal would have to remain intact, and that the Castilians did not have to show positions in Portugal nor in its overseas territories. The Castilians did not have either to be authorized to participate in the commercial life of Portugal nor in the one of their empire. These concessions of Felipe even meant that, although the Iberian Peninsula had finally been united in the person of a single monarch, PORTUGAL CONTINUED BEING, MORE THAN ARAGON AND CATALONIA, AN SEMIINDEPENDENT STATE, ASSOCIATED, NOT INCORPORATED, TO THE CROWN OF CASTILE, .
Which I have mentioned also it, but this by the way DOES NOT EXCLUDE that Portugal was tie to the policy and the decisions of the Court, that was in Madrid, not in Lisbon.
Watching portuguese wiki I see a denominated article pt:Restauração da Independência, which means that before the date of 1640, Portugal was not independent, I myself I mentioned that in the Hispanic monarchy the territory-kingdoms were apparently independent, and do not have to be considered neither as provinces nor as incorporated kingdoms as it is the case of the kingdom of Navarre.
However, although the empire of the Hapsburg (Austrias), was not an Empire of Spain, like modern state, nevertheless, was Spanish as far as a flexible notion of geography, ideology and representation public-diplomat, in whom during a time Portugal was included and thus they saw the contemporaries it of century XVII, but when the Restauraçao took place, Portugal and its empire were broken contact, it was against and it affirmed nationally against this conception of Spain that would be developed without the Portuguese territory.
In the Collecção dos tratados, convenções, contratos e actos publicos celebrados entre a coroa de Portugal e as mais potencias desde 1640 até ao presente compiled by Jose Ferreira Borges de Castro (1856), in its (page 102)
it says: Assento feito em Goa a 20 de Janeiro de 1635, entre o vice-rei conde de Linhares, e Guilherme Methwold presidente da Companhia de Inglaterra, para se haverem de guardar as pazes celebradas em Madrid, em 15 de novembro de 1630, entre Portugal e a Gram Bretanha.
Where the Portugal word only appears in the title, and the unique monarchs who mention are those of Espanha(España/Spain) and England.
But was not so independent the Portuguese empire? , what makes the king of Espanha(Spain) mentioned in a Portuguese treaty? , the unique explanation is to accept that the notion of Spain of that time is not the same that at present, and that the catholic monarchy of the Hapsburg was Spanish according to that conception.
In this same sense, History and civilization: Selected writings of Jose Maria Jover Zamora, Marc Baldó i Lacomba and Pedro Ruiz Towers, published by University of Valencia (1997) are paraphrased Juicio secreto e interior de la Monarquía para mí solo (1672)en:Juan de Palafox y Mendoza that in (page 79)
que a esta Monarquía la zanjó la sabiduría y gran juicio de Fernando el Católico, la formó el valor y celo de Carlos V y la perfeccionó la justicia y prudencia de Felipe II; este último perfeccionó la monarquía , con agregar la Corona de Portugal y sus Indias Orientales a lo restante de España».
translated in english: that this Monarchy it settled the wisdom and great judgment of Fernando the Catholic, formed the value and fervor of Carlos V and perfected the justice and prudence of Felipe II; this last one perfected the monarchy, with adding the Crown of Portugal and its Indians to the rest of Spain.
EHT, u forgot to put a part of the aragonese empire that once belonged to the spanish kings before the union of both crowns in 1492. In 1345 the aragonese empire conquered thanks to the Almogavars (catalan and aragonese soldiers) a part of greece (Duchy of Athens & Duchy of Neopatria these territories were administrated by the Aragonese Crown during a long period of time. Besides some parts of Turkey that disputed Spaniards (Aragonese and Catalan) against the Byzantine ones.
per example, the title of Duke of Neopatria was assumed the year the 1377 by king spanish king Pedro Ceremonious and was conserved within the real prerogatives until the reign of Charles II of Spain.
Relly ? until Charles II who ruled until 1700? can you provide references please :)? i knew the duchy of Neopatria was spanish for some time but not until the 1700's , im very interested and if it stayed until the end of the reign of Charles II , i'll make sure to include it.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
«anyway what do you think about my iberian union text and the sources that i have provided?». Hey Cosialscastells. The text that supposedly you have provided, is a text that I, myself, was worried in researching, writing and commenting with The Ogre in the talk page of commons. Those same sources, and even more (24 October, 9 November ), I have put them in this talk page. I can be happy that anyone takes my contributions, but Cosialscastells if you have worried so much in translating a text that I have written in Spanish, you could have said where and who has done so, instead of saying what you've done yourself. If you would have written that, you know that I put references about the legal existence of Spain in the sixteenth and seveteenth centuries, in that Spain is recognized not only inside, but also in the European courts, to avoid comments that Spain did not exist until the Nueva Planta decrees (1707-1716) or the Constitutions of Bayonne (1808) / Cadiz (1812). But before the sixteenth century, Spain was only a geographical and literary notion, since there was not an administrative structure that was agglutinating it. So we cannot go back before the sixteenth century, if not, will we put the Septimania also because it belonged to the Visigoths?. Trasamundo (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Trasamundo!, i just translated it is a nice text and proves what portugal was! , i didn't said "I MADE THIS TEXT", anyway don't get mad! :-) Hasta luego Cosialscastells (talk) 23:18, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Message to Cosialscastells and EuroHistoryTeacher
Both of your edits on this talk page are extremely hard to follow, because you do not follow the Wikipedia convention of indenting your posts. Can you please do so? All it takes is the use of colons - please make an effort to do so. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
In mentally and physically breaking out beyond the confines of the Pillars of Hercules into a wider world, the Spaniards were conscious of achieving something that surpassed even the feats of the Romans. They were on their way to a universal empire which was genuinely universal, in the sense of being global. This global advance can be simply plotted by a series of dates: the 1490s and 1500s, the conquest of the Caribbean; the 1520s, the conquest of Mexico; the 1530s, the conquest of Peru; the 1560s, the Philippines; the 1580s, the annexation of Portugal and the consequent acquisition of Portuguese Africa, the Far East, and Brazil. From this moment the empire of the king of Spain was indeed one on which the sun never set. John H. Elliott, Spain and its world, 1500-1700: selected essays, p. 8.
Nevertheless, when Henry died, the opposition to Castile was still so strong in Portugal and the attitude of France and England so threatening that it was necessary for Philip to send Alba with an army to conquer Portugal in 1580.
Of course, that is as simple as the fact that 2 plus 2 is four, in Spanish history. The only reason that the parts of the Portuguese empire are not in the map is because of one of the greatest problems in Wiki: Nationalism. The nationalism of some Portuguese (contributors who do not mind to falsify history to suit their infantile aims and the nationalism of some English speaking people who do not mind to falsify history as well, to follow the tradition of their countrymen or language mates, should we say, the belittlement of Spain. So, they will do it with all their power, even denying what is written in black and white. So, some serious users here please add those territories to the map. Enough with the falsification of history. Goebbles, should not be the reference here. Why do I mention Goebles?, because he once said: "We do not like history, let us falsify it". The poor German Nazis did not have much to feel proud of in their history. Believe it or not, the falsification of history that is being attempted here is not that far away from Goebles and is part of the ever lingering effects of the black legend, that has many different sides and angles. Use facts, stop sophistry in Wiki. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.76.150 (talk) 09:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The ones who are falsifying History here are the Spanish nationalists who are constantly distorting Historical facts to please their nationalistic propaganda. There is enough sources already provided in this talk page(if you care to read them of course) that show that Portugal and it´s Empire maintained full autonomy from Spain as swore by King Philip I of Portugal (Philip II of Spain) at the Cortes of Tomar by which Portugal maintained an independent law, currency, government, and it´s own flag. It was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately from each other.XPTO (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Here's an example of portuguese nationalist, i really feel sorry for you boy.So the battle of Alcantara and the conquest of Portugal by Duke de Alba (SPAIN) in 1580 never happened? HA!, how u can say that portugal never was under spanish rule? thats ridiculous.
TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, a letter sent by Philip III of Spain to Philip IV of Spain, Source Spain in europe , by J.H Elliot And Benítez at the university of Valencia:
«Tenga Vuestra Majestad por el negocio más importante de su Monarquía el hacerse Rey de España; quiero decir que no se contente con ser Rey de Portugal, de Aragón, de Valencia, conde de Barcelona, sino que trabaje por reducir estos reinos de que se compone España al estilo y leyes de Castilla sin ninguna diferencia, que si Vuestra Majestad lo alcanza será el príncipe más poderoso del mundo».
give us an amount of sources like i did, not portuguese propaganda, we want sources of well known writers/historians saying: portugal never was under the rule of spanish kings.... oh SHI- u can't provide us that kind of sources.Cosialscastells (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey kid, dont let nationalism blind you... grow up will you? The "conquest of Portugal" as you called it the perfect example of spanish nationalistic propaganda. There were several pretenders to the Portuguese throne, and the battle of Alcântara was between two of them, Philip and Anthony, Philip used military force to protect its personal claims to the throne just like many others at that time, it was not a battle Portugal versus Spain. In the following year Philip(which was half Portuguese by the way) was crowned King of Portugal by the Portuguese Cortes, just like any other Portuguese King.
There is not one single credible map that shows the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese colonies, and do you know why? Because the PE was not part of the SE, they were two different entities. XPTO (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
sorry but u can't provide anything, ure words are useless without sources, this is all you got, ur portuguese nationalism. I'll give you a good one.
In mentally and physically breaking out beyond the confines of the Pillars of Hercules into a wider world, the Spaniards were conscious of achieving something that surpassed even the feats of the Romans. They were on their way to a universal empire which was genuinely universal, in the sense of being global. This global advance can be simply plotted by a series of dates: the 1490s and 1500s, the conquest of the Caribbean; the 1520s, the conquest of Mexico; the 1530s, the conquest of Peru; the 1560s, the Philippines; the 1580s, the annexation of Portugal and the consequent acquisition of Portuguese Africa, the Far East, and Brazil. From this moment the empire of the king of Spain was indeed one on which the sun never set. John H. Elliott, Spain and its world, 1500-1700: selected essays, p. 8. WHAT PART OF THIS YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND?
I do not know what supposed historical facts the Spanish nationalism distorts, and what is its purpose, since there is neither irredentism nor a project of Great Spain that includes to absorb Portugal. There is enough sources I already provided in this talk page (if you care to read them of course) in Spanish, in English and French, that show that Portugal and its Empire maintained full autonomy, an own law, currency, government ... like other kingdoms of the Spanish Monarchy, so foreigner was a Castilian in Portugal as he was in Aragon, until Nueva Planta decrees (1707-1716) unified the legislation (except in Navarre and the Basque Provinces). Spain was composed of autonomous kingdoms subordinated to the policy of the King, and that policy was not different in each kingdom. The sources that I have emphasized are based on primary sources and refer to legal and juridical issues, and they are not commentaries of scholars linked to other issues. It is very easy to say that because Portugal had its own administration, its own juridical configuration, its singularity (all of that absolutely true) someone deduces that hereby Portugal was independent, but it is WP:SYN, since we ignore that other Spanish kingdoms also kept substantial control over its own administration. What do we do with the Crown of Aragon? was it an independent kingdom or was Spanish?. There was a viceroy in Portugal, and also another one in Aragon, another one in Valencia, another one in Naples, another one in Sicily, and I would like to know the legal basis for that the viceroy of Portugal was from an independent country, and that of Aragon was not, and why the Cortes of Lisbon in 1619 would be from an independent kingdom, and would the Cortes of Valencia in 1604 would be Spanish?.
Before you say that PE was not part of the SE, they were two different entities, you might have read something about the polisynodial system of the Spanish monarchy, and beside prattling and repeating phrases thoughtlessly, might explain us with sources how was organized, on the one hand, what you say that it is Spain, and on the other hand, Portugal during 1580-1640, because if they were two entities then they would be organized in two different ways; for my part I hope to put sources soon about the polisynodial system which included Portugal, because I put sources of everything I affirm, in spite of the fact that someone should say to me verbose, and hereby I already have put sources that bring over that Portugal, together with Aragon and Castile were the domains of the King of Spain, and don't come back with the distinction between the Habsburg empire and Spanish empire, because they both belong to different geographic areas completely.
With regard to the famous maps, we read an argument already clarified in Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard: images that mearly illustrate things discussed in the text of the article (these images do not need to be sourced, since the text they are illustrating should be sourced)., that is to say, the maps are not the concept itself, but the representation of a sourced concept. The aim of putting two colors to a printed world map in Philip II's epoch, does not have the single cause to differentiate two independent empires, probably those two colours are in order that the reader distinguishes best the growth of the Spanish empire during a period of time, with the incorporation of Portugal. Everything depends on the viewpoint.
And as starter of what lacking me for adding: «and around 1580 - Ironically at the time that the Philippnine empire achieved optimum size and the Spanish System definitive form, with the annexation of Portugal - ...» Philip IV and the Government of Spain, 1621-1665, p.153 written by R. A. Stradling and that is a work of a malign publication of Spanish nationalistic propaganda named Cambridge University Press, 2002.
i totally AGREE with both of you(Jan & Transmundo)and also with EHT, the sources from Cambrige university & J.H Elliot (one of the greatest hispano historians in the world and winner of the Asturias award see en:Prince of Asturias Awards) are clear enough. The Red Hat Pat of Ferrick, there's no compromise reached yet. At least i don't want ur phobe portuguese nationalistic propaganda here. go on with the map! Cosialscastells (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok here is the map we are thinking of using (instead of 2 maps), what do you guys think?
[[:Image:Spanish Empire total.PNG|thumb|400px|right|An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1975). Red - actual possessions; Pink - explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty. Purple - Portuguese colonies during the period of the Iberian Union (1581-1640). The empires remained legally separate, but historians are divided over whether the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire de facto.]]
.]] --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - SamEV's compromise proposal of two maps at the top, which I don't like, but would accept if it stops the argument, is fine. I am not, however, going to agree to this map. If there is no scholarly consensus, then Wikipedia should default to not showing them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
None of us agreed to that compromise , can you quote my words to see that i did?
The nature of wiki is ever changing , don't be ridiculous . THERE IS SCHOLARLY CONSENSUS , don't you see all the 500+ sources you have been showed? those words are Sam's EV which i have already changed--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Pat writes: " If there is no scholarly consensus, then Wikipedia should default to not showing them."
Pat, I hope you remember we have a policy called Neutral point of view. It demands that all important points of view be expressed. Please stop repeating your minimalist position, which violates that policy.
Pat, give us a break. Really. Let me emphatic: there is nothing undue in the postition we are advancing. Get it through your head, please, and be constructive. I credit you with being so recently, at least. SamEV (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Er, did you actually read that WP:UNDUE section? Judging by your reply (which was rather rude, by the way: "get it through your head" is a very impolite way of addressing a fellow editor), I don't think you did read it. The point of WP:UNDUE is that "NPOV" does not mean "give equal weight to every single viewpoint out there". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The answer is yes. But I will read it again, if you quote me anything to the contrary of this: the policy states that whenever two or more positions have equal or about equal support, they must be presented as such.
Well, Pat, you've been shown more than sufficient sources that demonstrate that (Trasamundo has promised more). WP:UNDUE doesn't apply in this case, then. SamEV (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
The original map (no Portuguese colonies, mention them in the caption) was the most balanced situation. To add the Portuguese colonies to the map and then to write in a disclaimer that historians do not agree that they constituted part of the Spanish Empire is completely giving WP:UNDUE weight to the wrong side. As I have said before, it is not possible to both show and not show the Portuguese colonies on the map. Therefore, unless two maps are shown (as per your compromise), we have to decide on one. And as I have repeatedly said here, my view is that the "lowest common denominator" map should prevail, particularly given that you will find in most books on the Spanish Empire a brief, one-paragraph mention of the Portuguese colonies 1580-1640 (and many of which go out of their way to point out how the empires were kept separate). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt23:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ferrick says : "to write in a disclaimer that historians do not agree that they constituted part of the Spanish Empire is completely giving WP:UNDUE weight to the wrong side." , did you read the captions (small letters or explanation in the pic box) ? it says historians ARE DIVIDED over whether PE lands formed part of SE empire. You contradict yourself all over the place Ferrick , think before you speak--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Pat, when you write untruths like "you will find in most books on the Spanish Empire a brief, one-paragraph mention of the Portuguese colonies 1580-1640" you fall in danger of lapsing into irrelevance. I ask you again to be constructive.
My suggestion to EHT, Cosialcastells, and Jan is that we await Trasamundo's opinion on this two maps vs one map business. Until then, let's cool it, everyone. SamEV (talk) 23:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
How about you stop quoting irrelevant policy (UNDUE, UNCIVIL)? How about you stop your minimalist rigmarole? Who raised the temperature unnecessarily? You did, Pat.
SamEV: Wikipedia policies are important here. You raised the policy first (NPOV), did you not? So you are allowed to raise policies, but I am not? You are allowed to put your point of view on this talk page, but when I do I am being "unconstructive" or writing "untruths" or engaging in "minimalist rigmarole"? I think I'm actually done discussing this with you and EHT now: it's time to involve outside opinion. I shall be requesting assistance shortly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Ferrick drop the bullshit ok? you are very rude and you act in dictatorial manners , you have been told of your ownership issues everywhere , in here , british empire talk page or even your own user page , and you have been told this not just by non-brits but even by your own countrymen , listen to people man you make yourself not likeable , and also remember sophistry is not allowed.
How many times you have accussed me of being a sockpuppet? about 5 times , even the first day i came here you were already throwing insults at me (and you still do), so please don't act like a victim , don't cry wolf, you make yourself look like a clown and btw don't even claim this is a personal attack because is not , im just reminding you what people think and has said about you because of your unnacceptable behavior , greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"I'm actually done discussing this with you and EHT now"
Your choice, Pat. I took on my fellows here in order to accomodate your concerns but you ended up throwing a tantrum and turning on me. Hope your happy with the ultimate outcome of your decision. SamEV (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
i don't think he overreacted but he rather subcumbed to your rudeness , thats how us users feel when you try to walk all over us, it gets really annoying and you force us users to give up a discussion with you Ferrick, you need to be civil --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution
OK, this has gone on long enough now. First a compromise is proposed, then within 24 hours the compromise seems to have been forgotten and we're now proposing to add the map that was disputed in the first place. I am going to request dispute resolution, as this situation is getting ridiculous. Outside, neutral, opinion is probably best here anyway to prevent us from going around in circles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
A compromise was PROPOSED but not accepted. This map was never disputed , what are you talking about? are you lost?
If that "neutral" opinion won't allow us to show the PE in the SE, then i oppose as so many users will--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Your latest handiwork is just a minor variation on the same map that some editors have tried to add for years here. When I say it's "disputed", I mean the general issue of showing the P colonies as part of the SE is disputed. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
this map should contain charolais and the boundary of the holy roman empire (spanish empire under charles V) again and again the spanish empire started under charles V, not under his son! thanks to him, Spain reached the incluence of power in europe, he financed the american conquest,he won the most important battles with spanish tercios.. i can provide hundred of sources about it, in each book of the spanish empire it appears this information. Cosialscastells (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
No cosialcastell you know what i think? if luso-british users here won't allow the correct version of the SE to go into wiki (but it will eventually) , what makes you think they would want the HRE in the SE?! lol, anyways i will include Charles V PRIVATE POSSESIONS within the HRE (like parts of Switzerland and Austria and Italy etc., not the whole HRE--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
i still don't get it :-), the spanish king Charles I of Spain was crowned emperor of the HRE, if u can't put all the charles possesions including the HRE because the absurd nationalism, i'll put here more than 30 sources of every known historian who have writed about the history of spain that will allow you to put them, every book of spanish history says that the spanish king and emperor of the HRE ruled the spanish empire as a king of spain, any historian says the opposite. The spanish empire did not begun under Phillip II and sorry for be repetitive. Cheers Cosialscastells (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Please put up the one map, EHT. It's been proven enough. Use the caption Pat agreed to in the Iberian Union map. I don't think Pat is acting in good faith any more, so there's no sense in continuing to engage him as if he were. Let's put an end to what has now become a charade. SamEV (talk) 01:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Sam, please, calm down. We have a stable compromise for the time being: both versions of the map are up there. I suggest everyone retract their fangs, everyone takes a break, and we involve outside opinion so that we can reach a lasting consensus that complies with the policies. A couple of editors ganging up in numbers to "get their way" whilst a discussion is in-flight is not the right way to proceed, I know you are sensible enough to know that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt01:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Done Sam :) im sorry Ferrick i really don't want to do this but we have to show history as it has been presented to us, many users in the past have provided sources but you can't accept them , so we'll show the SE with the captions you agreed to --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Guys, this is totally not on. We had a compromise proposal, SamEV gets in a huff, and you are now taking turns in placing the disputed map (which both XPTO and Ogre object to) on the article page. I am trying to appeal to your sense of decency here: please leave the compromise proposal, and let's get outside opinion in. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt02:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
WHAT????!!!!! Ferrick put a label in the map saying actual accuracy is disputed!! disputed why and what?! we are showing in the caps that historians are DIVIDED over the issue , all the map info is correct , why the TAG?! im removing it unless you prove the map (and captions) are not accurate Ferrick--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree with you, EHT. If Pat doesn't like the map, then he's free to make his case here as we had to. Let him make the case for why the Portuguese colonies should not be shown. But that tag is wrong, as the boundaries are well sourced (so the tag cannot be said to apply to that; and I know that's not Pat's concern, but still), and the fact of different scholarly positions is acknowledged openly in the caption! SamEV (talk) 02:16, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
bla bla bla Ferrick got get the Supreme Court if you want , me and Sam with our historical facts can win this easy, i don't even know whats your arguement here!!!! you are just ranting, nothing else--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
No, no, no, EHT. Even though Pat did much to destroy good will today, we shouldn't treat him as he treated us. SamEV (talk) 02:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The Habsburgs reached the zenith of their power before the end of the 16th century: the duchy of Milan, annexed by Charles V in 1535, was assigned by him to his son, the future Philip II of Spain, in 1540; Philip II conquered Portugal in 1580; and the Spanish dominions in America were ever expanding. .
Very good. Congratulations for providinf online sources to what anyone familiar with Spanish history knows. Keep all those sources at hand, because knowing the agenda of some contributors here, I would not be surprised to see the map changed again. These people wait to come back again when they think no one is watching anymore. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.16.121 (talk) 11:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
^En 1768 el informe de Croix habla de "uniformar el gobierno de estas grandes colonias con el de su metrópoli". Siendo el primer documento conocido que redefine los reinos de "Indias" como "colonias".
Your latest version - should replace all others
Bad Anachronous map of the Spanish Empire plus the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640
A good map of the Portuguese and Spanish Empires during 1580-1640 - should replace all others regarding the Iberian Union period
OLD: Coat of arms of the king Philip II of Spain
Resumed Coat of Arms
.png){kind=link}
![[23]](http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/colonization_1600-1700.jpg){kind=link}
![[51]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Spanish_Overseas_Empire_And_European_Realms_Anachronous.png){kind=link}
