Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 925:
Line 925:
::::This is the talk page for discussing the Spanish Empire article, not squabbles. If you have a problem with the edits made to the map from the perspective of ] and ] or any other article-related matter, then please post them here. If you have a personal problem with my actions, then use my talk page. Thanks. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
::::This is the talk page for discussing the Spanish Empire article, not squabbles. If you have a problem with the edits made to the map from the perspective of ] and ] or any other article-related matter, then please post them here. If you have a personal problem with my actions, then use my talk page. Thanks. <span style="font-size:80%;font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold">]<sup> ]</sup></span> 00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Excuse me?! You made your accusation ''here''. So put up or shut up. ] (]) 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
:::::Excuse me?! You made your accusation ''here''. So put up or shut up. ] (]) 00:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
*Cool down Sam (and Pat, stop accusing people before you are reported), even though Pat F. requested for me to be blocked in order to "shut" me, I don't think I'm blocked since I'm able to edit, also I will be reverting your edits to the map since you consulted no one (we are a group and there is no '''I''' in team) so in the future it will be appreciated if you ask your fellow editors instead of just steamrolling over them (ironically I got blocked two times for defending the majority's opinion, of course the stories were elaborated by Pat F. as to show I broke a rule while he did worst but anyways ).--] (]) 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.Former countriesWikipedia:WikiProject Former countriesTemplate:WikiProject Former countriesformer country
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
If we read The New Cambridge Modern History: The Old Regime, 1713-1763 written by J. O. Lindsay, published by Cambridge University Press, 1957, which as all we know is a pamphlet of nationalistic Spanish propaganda, in its page 147: «In Habsburg Spain the government had been carried on by a mass of councils of which the most important had been the Council of State, which advised the king on foreign affairs Some councils dealt with the affairs of the Spanish dominions; these included the Council of Aragon, the Council of Italy, the Council of Flanders and the Council of the Indies, and for a time the Council of Portugal».
The origins of the polisynodial system we see them in Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, written by Stephen J. Lee, published by Routledge, 1984,
pages 37-38 and I copy some fragments: «Yet, after the initial problem of the revolt of the comuneros of Castile in 1520, Spain continued to develop a basically stable constitution. The conciliar system, used by Ferdinand and Isabella to increase the power of the Crown, was the key. The gradual acquisition of an overseas empire by Castille led to an additional territorial council. In 1524 the Council of the Indies was set up to supervise the administration of Spain's colonies in America, and was partially modelled on the Council of Castile This assertion seems particularly appropiate to the period after 1580, when Spain acquired Portugal and a second overseas empire; ». Thus, that empire which in some sources appears as Spanish, it is in the measure that Castile was Spanish, but properly and legally the overseas empire were Castilian, and along with this Castilian empire was the Portuguese empire.
If we continue in the page 40, we see the Spanish Councils in the sixteenth century and that all these Councils did depend upon the Crown, and among them was the Council of Portugal with its viceroy, together with the Council of Aragon, of Flanders, of Castile ..., and this is simply that I have been affirmed several times: that Portugal joined the administrative structure of Spain. Claiming that due to the fact that Portugal had administrative separated structure and that because of it, Portuguese colonies did not belong to Spain, it implies saying that Spain had an organizational structure, and Portugal had another separate independent structure, but where are the sources that they explain to us on the one hand the organizational structure of Portugal during 1580-1640 and on the other hand, that of Spain (in which supposedly Portugal is not there)?. What I am doing is to provide sources that indicate that Portugal was integrated into the organizational structure of Spain together with other kingdoms, and this is WP:V, not Spanish nationalism. If we affirm that the Portuguese Empire was not Spanish during 1580-1640 because the two overseas empires (Castile and Portugal) were legally and administratively distinct, then it is WP:SYN, and I am going to put again references of which Spain was composed of several territories and each of those territories had different juridical systems, and in a period of time Portugal and its empire joined preserving its singularity as all the rest territories.
If we continue taking books of pernicious nationalistic Spanish propaganda Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II written by Stafford Poole and published by University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 5-6-7 (page 5)
«Though his son, Philip II (1556-98), is often styled king of Spain, and he thought of himself as such, his was not a unified state, nor was he an absolute monarch. The various kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula had their own financial regulations, currencies and customs barriers. As John Lynch observed, Fernando and Isabel gave Spain a common government but not a common administrarion. The king rule varied in structure and power from kingdom to kingdom, city to city Philip's power over Aragon was far more attenuated than it was over Castile. The various states were united only in the person of the king (page 6) Philip administered his kingdoms though a series of councils whose number grew from eleven to fourteen during his reign. These were of two kinds: territorial and nonterritorial. First in importance among the territorial councils were the Council od Castile (which was also the supreme judicial court, established in 1480) and the Council of State (1523-24). The latter was concerned primarly with foreign affairs. The other territorial councils were the Indies (1524), Italy (1555), Portugal (1582), Flanders (1588) and Aragon (1494) (page 7) In the last half of the sixteenth century, Castile emerged as the paramount force in the Spanish states and the one to which the good of the others was subordinated ».
In The Challenge of Hegemony: Grand Strategy, Trade, and Domestic Politics written by Steven E. Lobell, published by University of Michigan Press, 2005, página 129 we read «In 1580, Spain acquired Portugal and its extensive empire in Brazil and the East Indies.» And in the page 133 mencion «The Duth used the years of the Spanish-Dutch Truce (1609-21) to consolidate and extend their gains in the East and West Indies at the expense of Spain's Portuguese empire». I am not very acquainted with the Saxon genitive, but that wants to say that
Portuguese empire belonged to Spain, didn't it?.
Well, I could add similar sources in Spanish, but I do not to get myself too heavy, just I will add only one: Felipe IV: El hombre y el reinado, written by José N. Alcalá-Zamora, Real Academia de la Historia (Spain), published by CEEH :
«EL GOBIERNO DE LA MONARQUÍA EN TIEMPOS DE FELIPE IV ES UNA CUESTIÓN COMPLEJA, PUES COMPLEJA era la Monarquía de los Austrias madrileños. De cuya singularidad nos da idea el extremo de que carecía de un nombre, que con visos de oficialidad, la identificara en cuanto tal. Nosotros convencionalmente la solemos denominar Monarquía Hispánica; o bien utilizamos alguna de las denominaciones que para referirse a ella se generalizaron en los siglos XVI y XVII: Monarquía Española, Monarquía Católica, por la titulación pontificia de sus reyes, o Monarquía de España.
»Pero ante todo, e independientemente de la forma que nos refiramos a ella, estamos ante una Monarquía transoceánica, en la que, efectivamente, nunca se ponía el sol. A los territorios europeos y a los extensos dominios americanos o asiáticos de las Indias de Castilla, habían venido a sumarse, en 1580, Portugal y las dilatadas dependencias ultramarinas de la Corona lusitana, que más tarde se desgajarían del tronco común de la Monarquía del Rey Católico tras los acontecimientos de 1640.
»Así Felipe IV era cabeza de un conglomerado de coronas, reinos y estados de la más variada caracterización jurídica. Y en cada uno de ellos el monarca reinaba con diferente título y con distintos y desiguales poderes. Coloquial y literariamente estaba extendida la expresión "Rey de España" o "de las Españas"; usándose indistinta y frecuentemente el singular y el plural, en latín y en castellano, en los documentos reales, ya fueran despachos o cartas.Por otra parte, en la documentación privativa de los distintos reinos y estados se utilizaba en ocasiones sólo el título regio del territorio de que se tratara Es precisamente esta -llamémosla- "constitución" interna de la Monarquía, que se fundamentaba en el estricto respeto a la configuración jurídica propia de los territorios que la integraban, la que intentó variar Olivares en su programa político.» Who likes to translate this Spanish text, you may do it freely. Trasamundo (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey Trasamundo nice job , i think we (well at least whoever didn't know) that Portugal and ITS EMPIRE belonged to Spain and formed part of it for more than half a century.
There is no need to translate as you have also provided accurate sources in english.
Im just going to translate this important piece of text :
"sumarse, en 1580, Portugal y las dilatadas dependencias ultramarinas de la Corona lusitana"
"Thus, that empire which in some sources appears as Spanish, it is in the measure that Castile was Spanish"
"Spanish Empire" = "Castilian Empire", you're saying. I Agree.
"...that due to the fact that Portugal had administrative separated structure and that because of it, Portuguese colonies did not belong to Spain, it implies saying that Spain had an organizational structure, and Portugal had another separate independent structure, but where are the sources...? And later: "Spain was composed of several territories and each of those territories had different juridical systems, and in a period of time Portugal and its empire joined preserving its singularity as all the rest territories."
We can simplify it like this: the fact that there was a measure of federalism is being used by some to claim that Portugal was "independent". Well, the United States is a federal republic; is California therefore an independent country? SamEV (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Minor map modifications
colored areas under spanish rule i N. america like in georgia or Vancouver island
Hey in the parts of brazil/suriname/french guyanna/guyanna, the alaska shaded regions , etc should we just colored it red ? too many colors are confusing, lets just leave 2 colors : spanish-red, portuguese-purple like in british empire one-color only, what do you guys think?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 04:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep the two-color system for Spanish colonies. Actually, I propose a light shade of pink for the rest of North America. What do you think? SamEV (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
i'd add the portuguese overseas possesions in red... Trasamundo provided a lot of sources even from Cambridge(this sources are spanish propaganda too?).. Charolais is missing in the map :-) Cosialscastells (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC).
It's difficult to tell whether Charolais is actually in the map or not. It may be that EHT drew it continuously with Franche-Comté. But F-C is slightly out of position (as is the Spanish-ruled strip of the Rhineland). Unless EHT was including Swiss areas on purpose. Were you, EHT?
Cosialscostells, when you say you agree with me, are you referring to North America, the keeping the two-color scheme (at least for some areas), or both? SamEV (talk) 06:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
oh i get it cosiacastell! you should've said Burgundy!! lol that in the heart of France basically , i forgat to add , i did now.SamEV why is F-C in the wrong place? yes it did include parts of western switzerland , remember F-C borders in the 16th century are not the same of today, and why its Rhineland wrong? where is it supposed to be?
I added the rest of the alaskan coast in pink because when Balboa crossed the Isthmus of Panama he claimed all the adjoining lands of the pacific ocean--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Cosialscostell, I disagree about that map you showed. If it meant to include all those areas as Castilian, why is Germany proper the only one in the same color as Castile? (And is it really the same color? Could just be a rather similar shade.) Why aren't the Burgundian lands in that color, too? After all, Spain ruled them long after Charles V ceased to rule Germany. And how can the same orange color correspond to Castile in 1516 and to Germany in 1519, per the legend?
EHT, would you give me a source for the F-C's including parts of what is now Switzerland? I just want to be sure, but above all, we need to avoid its becoming an issue later.
As for the Rhineland, please take another look at the links I provided above, which show the districts, called "Kreise" in German, and look at this map, which is the source: . You will see that those districts run all along Belgium's eastern border, Luxembourg's eastern border, and the southeastern corner of the Netherlands. They even run along Belgium's and Luxembourg's southern border (i.e. they include a very thin portion of northern France). They may also include the western part of Saarland. SamEV (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
A comment about the map's coloring in the Pacific Northwest: I don't understand why a large portion of land extending far into the interior of today's British Columbia is shown in red ("actual possessions") while the coast of approx. today's Alaska is pink ("explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty"). I know that Spain claimed the entire region for a long time, and explored the coast north to Alaska a number of times, so I understand the use of pink here. But the red... what does "actual possession" mean? Something more than just exploration, influence, trade, and claims. I'm guessing it means colonization or at least the establishment of posts? If so, the red areas in the Pacific Northwest strike me as far too large. Spain established a few posts along the coast--at Nootka Sound most famously--but all very short-lived and none on today's Oregon coast. And in the interior there was no exploration or trade, and only minimal influence at best. The use of red for modern BC, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, etc, strikes me as odd. These regions were perhaps claimed, but aside from the coast, not explored, traded in, "influenced" (whatever that means), or "possessed"--unless I am misunderstanding the meaning of "actual possession". Even on the coast north of California the actual possession was very limited. Other than the Spanish post at Nootka Sound, which endured for 5 or 6 years, there were perhaps 2 or 3 attempts to establish posts, but none lasted even a year. Even so, I could understand coloring the coast north to Vancouver Island red, but to color the whole interior red confuses me--especially when pink is used for the Alaskan coast, which was far more influenced and explored by the Spanish than was the interior of British Columbia, etc. Anyway, just thought I'd add this to the pile of map questions already on this talk page! There is an overview of Spanish activities in the Pacific Northwest at Nootka Crisis (fairly well sourced). Also of interest might be the Spanish expeditions to Alaska page (which is not well sourced-- athough some of the explorers' pages are). There's a whole category on the topic, Category:Spanish history in the Pacific Northwest as well. Pfly (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Pfly. Thanks very much for your input and the resources.
"Actual possessions" isn't limited to settled areas. An area that is claimed, and with that claim either recognized by other powers or not contested effectively, would qualify as an actual possession. Vast areas of many countries fall into that category. For example, Russia began expanding into Siberia about four centuries ago, but I've read of no serious challenge to Russia's title to the region just on the grounds that most of that huge land (5 million square miles) is devoid of Russians. (The disputes with China involved borderlands that China had previouly claimed and/or in which she had been active; these issues were settled largely to Russia's advantage.) I'd also add that vast swaths of Canada are empty of any human presence whatsoever, perhaps in all of history, yet Canada's title to those areas is recognized by all countries and major organizations. So again, actual occupation is not necessary for an area to fall into the category of "actual possession". Montana and Wyoming were part of the Louisiana region (stretching from the Gulf of Mexico to southern Canada), which Spain did actually hold for 38 years. That's why red is proper for them.
The Oregon country, in turn, falls in the category of areas wherein Spain's claim was not effectively challenged by other powers for a time: eventually they (Russia and Britain) did challenge Spain effectively.
Lastly, areas within Spain's sphere of influence were areas that were not Spanish-owned nor claimed, but in which the Spanish presence was so strong that these areas were de facto dependencies of Spain (diplomatically, commercially, militarily, etc). A good example is the Adrar Emirate, in Mauritania, which was a Spanish protectorate — de facto, at least. (There was discussion of Adrar, further up, if you're interested.) All of Italy, with the exception of the Republic of Venice, was decidedly within the Spanish sphere from 1559 (the conclusion of the Italian Wars and for a century and a half afterward. SamEV (talk) 15:02, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Pfly I have provided sources that included Vancouver Island and huge parts of British Columbia , i even took a picture of my book about european land claims in the year 1700 and all that is colored in the pacific northwest is correct, but unfortunalely you are not able to see the picture because it was deleted for copyright issues , but i'll see of a way for you to see it.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi-- I don't have much time, so just a quick response. If "actual possession" includes claims that are not contested effectively", as with the Oregon Country (for a time), then shouldn't Alaska also count as an actual Spanish possession? Spanish claims to the entire Pacific coast of both Americas go way back. When Russia did begin to contest the claims, Spanish expeditions were launched to Alaska, with landing parties performing possession ceremonies and so on. My understanding is that Spain felt it had an old and good claim to Alaska, and made efforts to strengthen it when Russian encroachment began. If so, and by the above definition of "actual possession", shouldn't Alaska as well as the Oregon Country be colored red? If nothing else, perhaps the term "actual possession" should be defined somewhere to avoid misunderstandings like I had (and still have to a degree)? ...more later if I have time. Pfly (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed: Alaska should be red. And yes, again, to defining "actual possessions". I'll work on it and hope user Trasamundo and others help — you too, Pfly, should you return to this page (no pressure, though). Cheers. SamEV (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Since I found the term "actual possessions" confusing, I looked around for usages of it in the sense you defined, SamEV, An area that is claimed, and with that claim either recognized by other powers or not contested effectively, would qualify as an actual possession. But I have not been able to find anything that uses the term that way. Rather the term seems to mainly be used to refer to physical occupation--settlement and "land improvement" for possession of land, and in looser (though still often fully legal) senses, physical control of something. This idea was often contrasted with "constructive possession", or "fictitious title", "virtual possession", etc, meaning one has some legal right of possession but does not actually have the item or occupy the land. While I'm no expert on this topic and my search was far from exhaustive to say the least, I found quite a number of authoritative books, dictionaries, etc, that use the term "actual possession" in this way, and none that use it in the way defined here. If nothing else it seems sure enough that in modern US law "actual possession" of land means physical occupation (in the context of real estate property at least--international law has changed since the 18th century!). It also seems that the common meaning of the term in non-technical English has to do with actually occupying land or having an item. So, I am wondering whether some other term might be better for describing the red color on the map here, as "actual possession" seems likely to be understood as "physical settlement, occupation, colonization". That is what I thought it meant at first anyway. Then again, I could be totally wrong about the usual meaning of the term. I was just unable to find it used in this way. ..I was going to write more, but am out of time. Please excuse any typos, etc. Pfly (talk) 07:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Pfly, I'm convinced. It's clear that "actual" is incorrect for some of the areas currently colored red, though "possession" is still appropriate for them (do you agree?). I would like for you and everyone else to make suggestions on how to redefine the currently red areas, please. Alternatively, we might change the color of some of them. SamEV (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It depends on what is meant by possession. Certainly Spain claimed the Pacific Northwest, but until the late 18th century the region was a total unknown to Europeans of any nation. If Spanish possession is based mainly on the papal bulls of 1493-94 and Balboa's claim in Panama, then it would be a contested possession at the very least. As I understand, England dismissed these claims as establishing possession unless backed up by actual occupation, as early at the 1490s and Cabot's voyages. So yes, I have no trouble with the idea that Spain claimed the whole PNW and Alaska. The word possession sounds weird when applied to a totally unknown and unvisited region. When Spain did begin to voyage to the PNW in the late 18th century, there was already competition from the Russians and British. The Russians in particular had de facto possession of large parts of the coast of Alaska. Spain and Britain argued over which had better claims of discovery and occupation. Both performed a number of ritual possession ceremonies in the region. The one real Spanish possession, in the sense of occupying a permanent post, at Nootka Sound, was immediately controversial, contested by Britain, and after a few years ceremonially returned to Britain and abandoned by both. In short, I find the word possession troublesome, excepting perhaps Nootka Sound. The word "claim" seems more accurate for the PNW, in my understanding. I'd like to write more, but as usual only have a few minutes. But-- in response to EuroHistoryTeacher, you wrote that you have a map source in a book about european land claims in the year 1700. The word "claim" instead of "possession" seems notable, no? Also, having read (or at least skimmed!) this long talk page and seen lots of strong feelings, I'd like to say that I am not interested in reducing the historical importance of the Spanish Empire--just the opposite: The Spanish history in the Pacific Northwest (where I live) is very interesting and very little known by most people. There is a surprising amount of misinformation out there, often giving credit to the British for discoveries and explorations that ought to go to the Spanish. I've worked off and on for a year or two trying to improve the wikipedia articles on the topic. In short, I'm rather a fan of the Spanish history of the Pacific Northwest. So I hope my words here are not taken as somehow anti-Spanish and pro-British or anything like that. Ok, gotta run! Back later.. Pfly (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, claims (since it wasn't challenged until much later) would actually mean posessons. I would just like to put posessions but Actual posessions is how it looks in the Portuguese Empire and i used that article as a guide to editing this.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
First, since Alaska is only in pink, the issue is really what was called the Oregon Country.
"It depends on what is meant by possession."
"Possession" in the sense of "legal right to (or "ownership of") the area"; as you wrote in your preceding post: "actual possession" "was often contrasted with "constructive possession", or "fictitious title", "virtual possession", etc, meaning one has some legal right of possession but does not actually have the item or occupy the land."
Would you not agree that especially between 1775 and 1789 Spain had an almost unassailable legal title to the Oregon Country vis a vis the other powers, as it was based on the papal bull, Balboa's claim, and Spanish voyages to the area from the 16th century (beginning with Ferrer), culminating with Hezeta's 1775 landing and claiming the region for Spain? I ask non-rhetorically: what other country could match that? Britain? Russia? So, although they contested Spain's claim, this fell more in the category of an ineffective challenge. The Nootka incident (1789), of course, changed that.
And thank you for your reassurances, Pfly. Yes, there's been way too much animosity around here. It is my strong hope that we're in a far more amicable phase. SamEV (talk) 00:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree "that especially between 1775 and 1789 Spain had an almost unassailable legal title to the Oregon Country..." (etc). Unfortunately I haven't had the time to write more about this. But I wanted to at least leave this note explaining my silence--lack of time. Pfly (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent) Actually, after thinking about it, I don't know whether that statement quoted above is reasonable or not. At first it seemed odd. I thought, for example, that England had long rejected the papal bull as having legal validity (at least for England, which had rejected the authority of the Pope altogether), and that Balboa's claim was far too sweeping and could not seriously have meaning many thousands of miles from Panama. No Spanish voyage before Juan Perez in 1774 reached explored north of California; at least no well documented voyage, but if Juan de Fuca, for example, is counted, then so should Francis Drake. But! After thinking a while, and rereading the question more closely and noting the words "legal title ... via a vis the other powers..." instead of "possession" or "claim", well, I would probably agree. By "legal title vis a vis the other powers" I am guessing you mean in the high-level diplomatic sense of European/Western international law, such as it was at the time. It took a near-war for Britain to change the situation in terms of international law. Russia and Spain eventually recognized each others claims, based on "prior discovery" against "occupation", I think. So, yes, i probably agree. But this is still different from "possession" in the usual sense of the word. Terms like "virtual possession" are a kind of legal jargon most people probably don't understand. The word "claim" seems alright. But another question is whether it makes sense to color Oregon Country on a map as part of the Spanish Empire. The word "empire" usually means lands actually subject to, or at least depedent upon, the sovereign state.
In short, I would probably answer the question about legal title "yes", but still find the map confusing and/or misleading. But I'm not sure what would be better. Changing the words in the legend for the color red might help, but color is used for areas most definitely part of the empire (eg, Spain itself, Mexico), areas only partially so, and areas never much more than of Spanish "legal title". The use of more colors to show these differences would be more accurate and less misleading, but then it is best to keep maps like this easy to read and fairly simple. So, I don't know quite how to address these issues. (excuse any typos--don't have time to proofread!) Pfly (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
"By "legal title vis a vis the other powers" I am guessing you mean in the high-level diplomatic sense of European/Western international law, such as it was at the time."
Yes.
"But another question is whether it makes sense to color Oregon Country on a map as part of the Spanish Empire. The word "empire" usually means lands actually subject to, or at least depedent upon, the sovereign state."
I again bring up the matter of Siberia. Nor did Britain have any sort of presence in much of, say, Australia (the Outback), yet her ownership of the whole continent was taken for granted.
Might the solution lie in simply calling the red areas "possessions", instead of the current "actual possessions"? Or perhaps "possessions (includes certain unoccupied areas)"?
Thinking a bit more, I wonder if "territory" would be better. The word has the same basic connotation, but is more vague and perhaps less likely to be misunderstood. Perhaps... "possesions (includes certain unoccupied areas") sounds fine. Pfly (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I think "territory" is too vague, and that precisely because of that it's very likely to be misunderstood. Not only that, I would argue that all the lands the empire did actually possess and occupy and settle, as well as those it 'merely' claimed could collectively be referred to as the "territory" of the empire.
Well then, we seem to agree on "possesions (includes certain unoccupied areas)". However, do you want that amended to "possesions/territory (includes certain unoccupied areas)" or "territory/possesions (includes certain unoccupied areas)"? SamEV (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What references were used to draw the Portuguese areas of the map? And, while we're on the subject, this map? File:Iberian Union Empire.png The notion that the Portuguese established an empire that covered almost the entire coast of Africa, the entirety of Malaya, Sumatra and Java, half of Madagascar is misleading and frankly ridiculous. The Cape was never Portuguese. The Portuguese established coastal forts and trading posts and did not penetrate the hinterland. These two maps are a complete load of rubbish! It looks to me as though this map of discovery and exploration has been used in part and confused with meaning that the area was actually part of an empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh my god it happened again... How many sources did you use to merge the spanish empire and the portuguese one? If personal union means empire the holy roman empire must be coloured also in the map of the spanish empire! Is that right? No! The portuguese empire was only referred as spanish in the "hispanic"(=iberian) mean.
1. Yes, Castile and Aragon were independent from each other. However, by CONVENTION, we call Charles I of SPAIN because he ruled the lands of the future kingdom of Spain (in the XIXth century!). That included, at that time, the possessions of the Aragonese crown (Naples, Sicily) and the lands inherited by Philip I of Castile (Flanders, etc). This is the SPANISH EMPIRE.
2. The later personal union with Portugal can be referred as a HABSBURG or IBERIAN (=Hispanic, in those days = Spanish =/= modern Spanish meaning) empire, witch is a different thing from the "real", "the one we generally refer", Spanish Empire (Aragon+Castile+etc+colonies). Why Habsburg or Iberian or Hispanic? Because it is a new construcion: SPANISH + PORTUGUESE empires. However, even this is incorrect, because the Portuguese empire was kept separated:
a) de jure, words needed? And the de jure is most important in diplomacy, or chaos enters
b) and de facto, that was a personal union, how can we separate a "spanish influence" from a "king's decision" in a personal union? If Castile wanted Algarve and Portugal gave it was it an influence of Castile or a decision of the king of Portugal to give a bit of land to Castile? All the territories of the Portuguese Empire were controlled directly by Portugal, never by Spain. The portuguese territories were only administrated by portuguese people, for example, where are the spanish vice-roys of India? See for example Macau, who never accepted the Habsburg kings. Was Macau the only "independent" portuguese land? Lol. If this kind of de facto is used, then the Holy Roman Empire was also part of Spain. The decisions of Charles V/I were due to his will or by Castilian pressure? Was Spain part of the Holy Roman Empire or vice-versa? No, that's a nonsense. That was a personal union. The same with Portugal and Spain. People and some historians say Portugal was under spanish rule or influence? Was it really an influence of Spain or was that the policy of the king of Portugal? Clearly it was an influence of someone, that was the crown's influence, but the crown wasn't only Spanish.
3. The vice-roys of Portugal, before taking your ideas of what the vice-roys where, try to figure out why they existed. The vice-roys were REGENTS or REPRESENTATIVES of the king as he king lived in ANOTHER COUNTRY, in Castile in this situation. That's why Portugal and Aragon had vice-roys, they were not related to Castile. Until 1583 Portugal did not have vice-roys, why? Because the king lived in Portugal.
Do you understand the problem? You can refer an Habsburg or Iberian empire with Portugal included (only as a de facto thing), but not a spanish one as Portugal was out of the "by convention" Spain. The problem is this one, simply. Aragon has nothing to due with this, as it is included in the Spain thing, Portugal don't. That's also why Aragon or Flanders are part of the Spanish empire and Portugal don't.
Now how many sources do you want for every sentence I said?
Fortunately I have here a recent biography of Philip I, by Bouza (2008). I can point some ideas from the book (translated from Portuguese):
-"Swored prince in 1528, the year after his birth, since very young he was called prince of Spains, or Hispaniarum princeps, in a denomination that made reference to the personal union of the crowns of Aragon and Castile(...)"
-"Pedro Ordóñez de Cevallos (...) offers us in his encyclopedia Viaje del Mundo (Madrid, 1616), the following description of the portuguese empire (...) in a testimonial that reflects the view of Portugal from the other peninsular peoples: <<The crown of Portugal is the biggest thing ever seen, because it has vassals in every parts of the world, because it has Africa, Terceiras, Madeira, Brazil, Guinea, Mozambique, Hormuz, Persia, India, Cambaia, Cochim, Pescaria, until the Camori Cape, Ceylon, Malipur, Malacca, Cambodja, and an infinity of islands, that it is said that there is no kingdom nor province that touches in the sea more than 4000 leagues in this part and more than 3000 leagues in the other part that has lands and ports,(...) that we can say they are vassals"
-"(...) This particularity of the kingdom did not made Portugal a subject of Castile, but kept it separated, not as a conquered one, but as an inherited one"
-"The portuguese must not fear Philip I because of the Castilian as <<they were all under the name of spanish>> "
-"The reason of the portuguese exclusivism, that we consider the defining principle of the portuguese presence in the Hispanic monarchy, must be explained in this strong will of keeping himself as a kingdom and not as a province, of not being annexed, that, in another way, seemed to coincide with the theoretical, not always practical, solution of the Habsburgs to allow the coexistance of the several dominions of their crown"
-"If Portugal was an aggregated kingdom, not a subject of Castile, crown to witch Portugal was only linked through the royal person, because, the catholic king himself wrote <<we can't fuse some kingdoms and other ones because they have the same lord>>, their taxations, just like another kind of lusitanian particularity, followed a different path of the castilian one, maybe parallel to it in a lot of things, but never unified with it. This way, the hispanic Portugal understood the conservation of impositions and traditional incomes as a political privilege from its condition as an aggregated kingdom"
The author always uses "hispanic", never spanish, to refer the habsburg monarchy. Hispanic is like the old Spanish meaning, not the one we use now. Hispanic Portugal, not Spanish Portugal.Câmara (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Câmara, Transamundo provided millions of sources, even from cambridge and many known historians like John Huxtable Elliot and sources from the XVII century that say the same, THE PORTUGUESE EMPIRE AND ITS overseas POSESSIONS BELONGED TO THE SPANISH KING/SPANISH EMPIRE.
]
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.
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 Phillipines; 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.
Pat, there's been a recent lull in activity, that's all. EHT will source everything on the map page, and corrections will be made. I'm not sure about the purpose of that other (unused) map of which you speak, though. Let EHT explain whether it has a purpose.
Câmara, there have been plenty of reliable sources presented that flat out state that the PE was part of the SE. The use of the terms "de jure" and "de facto" is a way to include that and the opposite view, both. If it doesn't clarify "de facto", then how would you go about including the fact that sources say the PE was Spanish-ruled, but simultaneously state that legally it remained separate? SamEV (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not know how to qualify the last user:Câmara's intervention: several ideas jumping merrily and being contradicted some by others, very strange.
1. One thing is to establish the bulk of the empire, and another is to establish that such limits were eternal and inalienable and immutable in 400 years, and ignore its organizational structure for ideological reasons. If for convention, for convenience of publication, facility of understanding, some authors do not split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the kingdoms of the Catholic Monarchy, that does not mean that these relationships did not exist, and that the relation between Castile and Aragon were of the same type that between Castile and Portugal, as I have indicated previously putting references, that is called WP:V.
A thing is to demarcate the bulk of the empire, and other one is to establish that such limits were the eternal and unremovable and inalienable in 400 years, and to ignore its organizational structure for ideological motives. The misconception arises when for divulgative facility some scholars do not worry about the organizational structure. how do we qualify of trustworthy an affirmation that indicates that Castile and Aragon were independent, but as I am not interested about this due to a supposed convention, I ignore that they were both independent kingdoms juridically?
In addition, it is incorrect the affirmation about future kingdom of Spain (in the XIXth century!), when this denomination already appears in the XVIth century (Crónica del Emperador Carlos V by es:Alonso de Santa Cruz (Alonzo de Santa Cruz): Y en la verdad la moderación de estos títulos fue bien considerada porque se guardase la dignidad del Imperio de Roma y la preeminencia del Reino de España...) and XVIIth century (Gazeta de Madrid: que Su Santidad trabaja incesantemente por unir las dos Monarquías de España y Francia, y los demás príncipes de Europa contra las armas del Imperio de los Otomanos...). Therefore, it is wrong the idea that it has wanted to transmit that Spain did not exist up to the 19th century, but this is false even for contemporary people of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, well, we call Charles I of Spain because he was acknowledged as king of Spain or the King of Spains, indifferently, by his contemporaries and their successors, I remember the Plakkaat van Verlatinghe (1581) against Coninck van Spaegnien Philip II.
2. As for the personal union with Portugal later can be referred to as HABSBURG or IBERIAN empire, witch is a different thing from the "real", "the one we generally refer, Spanish Empire (Aragon+Castile+colonies+etc), well those suppositions seem WP:NOR (can be referred?), and for "the one we generally refer" please see WP: AWW. And later it is autocontradicted by the same reiterative tune: Portuguese empire was kept separated, which is something that nobody denies. Let's analyze the reasons:
a) de jure words needed? And the de jure is most important in diplomacy. Well then, I have demonstrated with sources that Portugal was integrated into the organizational structure inherited from the Spanish Catholic Kings, it would be interesting to read something about an organizational structure that Spain had nothing to do with Portugal. And another thing, if diplomatically Portugal was independent, then, where were the ambassadors of the Portuguese Court between 1580-1640?, in this aspect I am an ignorant.
Did you know that Carlos de Borja, count of Ficalho, disputed the presidency of the Council of Portugal to Diego de Silva, count of Salinea, appealing to the Council of Castile?. Here you have the article resume in book, where the author, of the university of Belfast, quotes a report of the Council of Castile where we see the conception of the Monarchy that they had in the first third of the 17th century: a king who respects the different legislations of every kingdom, the article is very cumbersome and the whole paragraph is in the page 7 of the file: ...y el juntarse distintamente en V.M. les da el digno renombre de Monarquía...
b) I do not understand very well that it means here de facto, because shows a confusing mixture of ideas, confusing Castilla with Spain, and making a puerile comparison with the Holy Empire that is WP: SYN: if the Holy Empire was in personal union with Spain then Portugal also. We start that none of my speeches I have made mention of the Holy Roman Empire, and what I have advocated and I have added many references to support him, is that Portugal was Spanish, as it was integrated into the administrative system inherited from the Spanish Catholic Kings and Charles I, and this this did not suppose the elimination of own right and particular institutions, something that did not happen in the rest of Spanish kingdoms, but this did not happen when Philip II was king of England, since no link existed between the two kingdoms, nevertheless that link administrative existed with Portugal, why is so difficult to understand this?, It is not necessary that you believe me, simply read the references that I have put. In addition, the policy of the king was the same for all his domains.
Can someone explain to me how it is possible in a country so independent, the existence of Junta de Hacienda de Portugal, formed by 8 Castilians and 6 Portuguese to control the Treasury of the Kingdom of Portugal? Here you are an article (web of the university of Oporto)
3. About The vice-roys of Portugal, I agree, because it has been used administrative and legal terminology. but it is more accurate to say another kingdom that another country.
The problem is that this supposed convention of some authors, tramples on the constitutional structure that had Spain, in which Portugal was included, and therefore, Portugal appears independent because yes, not because it was really, as I am straining in demonstrating with references neither with commentaries nor opinions.
In a compilation of writings of the year 1788, we see Instrucción que se dio al Señor Felipe Quarto sobre materias de gobierno de estos reynos y sus agregados that in its page 211, we read los reinos, señor, de Portugal son sin duda de lo mejor que hay en España, and in the páginas 195-196 we have the general description of the polisynodial system of Councils that already I put references, and especially in the page 196 we read: Es el primero el Consejo Real, el de Cámara, el de Indias, el de Órdenes, el de Hacienda, el de Cruzada, respecto de las demás coronas agregadas a ésta, el de Aragón, el de Flandes, el de Portugal, el de Italia: está también el de la Inquisición, que es común a los reinos de Castilla, Aragón e Indias; y el de Estado, que es el primero, porque en él se tratan todas las materias universales de la Monarquía, que se constituyen de todos los reynos referidos, y que miran a la trabazón, y unión de todo este sujeto, que se compone de ellos. Who likes to translate this Spanish text, you may do it freely. And I remember, was not he the Portuguese Miguel de Moura, secretary of the Council of State?
I do not know if it remains clear that a common administration existed for the whole Monarchy, and Portugal belonged to this union of all of this subject that consists of the mentioned territories. This one is the political thought in epoch of Philip IV, every domain, though we consider it to be independent, or autonomous, every domain retained and preserved its proper separate legislation, but it does not suppose that every territory had an independent policy, the politics of every kingdom was depending on the bureaucratic device of the Court of the King, and was the same device for all, the system of Councils. I do not be the determination to ignore complete and referenced articles because appears a phrase in a book that support the misconception. How it is possible to justify a point of view with a phrase as The two empires were kept administratively distinct, and not to explain anything at all about neither the administrative system nor legally, and when I add it, when I put references, when I justify and when I show that it is not only like that, but there are any more aspects to bear in mind, I am ignored? Really is this just?
About the ideas in the book Bouza extract more interesting ideas:
-If in 1528 was sworn Felipe Prince of Spain (but Spain not existed since the nineteenth century?) consisting of Castile and Aragon, that did not deny that in 1580 would join Portugal. Maybe it denies, and following this logic, as William IV was King of Great Britain and Hannover, Queen Victoria was queen of Hanover and never was Empress of India.
-Very interesting Pedro Ordóñez de Cevallos' description, Portugal had its territories, Aragon theirs, Castilla theirs.
-From a document of the Courts of Almeirim the Portuguese were Spanish, similar to the Castilians. Very enlightening.
-The reason of the portuguese exclusivism, that we consider the defining principle of the Portuguese presence in the Hispanic monarchy, must be explained in this strong will of keeping himself as a kingdom and not as a province, of not being annexed, that, in another way, seemed to coincide with the theoretical, not always practical, solution of the Habsburgs to allow the coexistance several of the dominions of their crown. Okay, it's what I'm trying to convince, the political system of the Spanish monarchy consisted precisely of it, for all its territories.
-If Portugal was an aggregated kingdom, not a subject of Castile, to crown witch Portugal was only linked through the royal person, because, the king himself wrote catholic <<we can not fuse kingdoms and some other ones because they have the same Lord>> The same applies here, it is curious to note that the word Spain disappears and appears the exact term of Castile, and this confusion between Castile and Spain originates the misconception.
For what I have read of these quotes, it does not refuse ever that Portugal should aggregated to Spain, as a kingdom separated from Castile, this is something that I come affirming with references, wait, yes, I have read Portugal was an aggregated kingdom.
I am not foreign to the denomination of Hispanic Monarchy, also it is in use in Spain to refer to the period of the Monarchy of the catholic Kings and of the House of Austria, for distinction of the Bourbon monarchy, with another organization and organization and internal configuration. They both are historical denominations as the French Revolution. Do we cut then the history of France because it changed the political constitution and we separate it with a special map of the period between Louis XVI and Louis XVIII, and we put that the Napoleonic France cannot appear in the history of France?. I do not understand how to affect the internal constitution of a country at the moment of delimiting the frontier in the map, will there be necessary to do a special map for the first Spanish republic?. And if we take the Spanish empire in 1707 with the New Plant Decrees would there be necessary to divide the article, and to begin the Spanish empire in this epoch? Trasamundo (talk) 04:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Very simple. When I reply, I paraphrase what I find striking and/or wrong, then I report the inconsistency of the previous mentioned quote, then I indicate what is correct, and put references to support it. The knowledge occupies space. and if you (Pat Ferrick) cannot stand what I write, then you continue without reading it, but you're the only one who complains. Trasamundo (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
"The problem is that there are a lot of other sources"
Of course, in reality that is not a "problem", Câmara. There's nothing wrong with the fact that historians have differing views; It's not a fatal situation. We just go by WP:NPOV, which means we include those differing views, and "problem" solved. So in reality, there's no need to convince each other that we're "right".
Trasamundo, in answer to your question about the phrase "The two empires were kept administratively distinct": that is what some scholars assert. I agree with you that they're wrong, but as you know, WP:NPOV commands us to include their view. I can honestly say, and believe that you would, too, that I wouldn't have it any other way.
When it's all said and done, the article will contain details about the administrative structure. I hope you're patient with us. We're at an early stage of rewriting this article, so a myriad refinements lie ahead. Your sources and expertise will be invaluable. SamEV (talk) 02:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Problems with the map and caption
"the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire de facto" - wrong, wrong wrong. See the citations I provided a year ago ("Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas 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"
Portuguese Empire: as mentioned above, the areas shaded in no way reflect the actuality of the Portuguese Empire, which at that time was a series of coastal forts and trading posts. For example, in Malaya, the Portuguese controlled Malacca and nothing more. Shading the entirety of Malaya is downright misleading.
As long as these errors remain or are reverted by anyone, I will ensure that a original research and/or disputed tag remains in that section. I was not more aggressive about this earlier this week as I was working on getting the British Empire to FA status, which it now has. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
I totally disagree, portuguese colonies should be included in RED. Transamundo has shown sources from CAMBRIDGE and many known english historians. Spain conquered portugal in 1580 (Battle of Alcantara), check out this: ].
Don't be ridiculous. I'm potentially willing to drop my objections to a map showing both empires on the same map - potentially (it depends on the behaviour of the other editors here towards my issues with the map/caption). But there is absolutely no way I will accept a map with one colour for both empires. Absolutely no way. That, my friend, is going too far. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick02:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Please, enough of the seemingly willful disregard of the fact that reliable sources support both views: that the PE was Spanish-ruled, and that it wasn't. As you have so many times, and correctly, reminded people, this is not about 'truth', but verifiability. You know well by now that both views are supported, so that meets the verifiability criterion.
At the very least we agree that historians do not interpret the situation the same, so the statement "did not include de jure but did include de facto" is in breach of WP:NPOV. The original statement about historians disagreeing was much better. (But we must be careful to not imply that there is some sort of controversy in academia about this. As far as I can tell, there is no controversy except here at Misplaced Pages). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick03:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
OK,I've seen this in the main page,"Historians give differing descriptions of the status of the Portuguese colonies during the union. i agree, anyway mostly of the historians who do not accept the fact that the Portuguese colonies were Spanish for a time are portuguese. Perhaps the Portuguese wikipedia does not have relevance, but in this, the English, the sources that are offered aren't of portuguese authors or portuguese historians, are of English famous historians and known English universities like Cambridge.greets Cosialscastells (talk) 03:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Cosialcastells, it does not matter for the purposes of NPOV whether the historian was Portuguese:
De Olivera Marques, Antonia. History of Portugal: From Lusitania to Empire. p. 315. "The (Portuguese) overseas empire continued to be ruled exclusively by Portugal according to the existing laws and regulations. The official language remained Portuguese. Currency continued separate, as well as public revenues and expenditures."
...but there are also plenty of English language hisorians too whose account does not concur with the "de facto" statement:
Maxwell, James. The History of Portugal. p. 103. "the overseas empires of both nations remained separate"
Lockhart, James. Early Latin America. p. 250. "The two empires were kept administratively distinct"
McEvedy, Colin. The Penguin Atlas of Modern History (to 1815). "the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union"
Stable for a week you say??? We had a map that was stable for over a year until you and EuroHistoryTeacher decided to gang up and impose your will. The wording you put there is unacceptable given the sources that I have provided, and I was not involved in its writing so you cannot claim to have a consensus. I have removed the sentence entirely until we can reach compromise here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Bigelow:"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." Can you please tell me where in this sweeping statement it draws the conclusion that the Portuguese Empire was included de facto but not de jure? Unlike the references I have provided, it does not even go into details of the legality or the actuality of the situation. See WP:SYN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
"and I was not involved in its writing so you cannot claim to have a consensus."
You mean just the same way I wasn't involved in your 'stable' map??? Looks like we're even, then.
Since Merriman, along with all the others we've quoted to you, is clearly saying that Spain annexed Portugal and its empire: if not de facto, then are you contending that it happened de jure? Or both?
Whatever the case may be, make your proposal for wording the caption. (I'm taking a break for an hour or so, btw.)
Having written most of British Empire and got it to featured article status ("an example of Misplaced Pages's very best work") virtually single-handedly, let me assure you I am very familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies, so I feel that I can confidently quote them. I can also assure you that, were we to submit this article for an FA review, it would fail spectacularly. Apart from the fact that the prose is ghastly, statements like the de jure/de facto one would be called immediately. It is a bold claim requiring an explicit citation that reaches the same conclusion to show that it is not synthesis. The sources I have provided challenge the notion that the Portuguese Empire was even de facto part of the Spanish Empire, while the sources you and others have provided go into no detail whatsoever of the technicalities of the union. So how did you reach this conclusion?
Moving on, I would propose we simply write "Yellow – the Portuguese colonies during the period of the Iberian Union (1580-1640) when the Spanish and Portuguese crowns were united under the Habsburg monarchy." The colonies are there on the map - that is what you have wanted for a year now - and this caption avoids the messy issue of trying to describe the situation in one sentence. If you are willing to accept this, I will drop my objections to showing the Portuguese colonies on the map. Perhaps then we can all move forward with improving the article itself and one day get it to FA status too. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, I should congratulate you on the British Empire, then. As to 'synthesis', since you skirted answering the question, I'll drop the silly issue so we can talk turkey. (Please let it die its deserved death. I know you like to win every argument, but let it go, Pat.)
On turkey, in a nutshell: your proposed caption is weaselly in that it neither asserts nor denies that the PE was part of the SE. It gives no strong indication of what the purpose of showing the PE is. SamEV (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
ps how about "united under the Spanish Habsburg monarchy"? The addition of the word "Spanish" gets to the crux of the matter, that it was a Spanish king who was also King of Portugal. (Although, that may raise objections from those who point out that Felipe was half Portuguese...) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:37, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
All that voodoo in order to avoid saying that some scholars assert that the PE was annexed while others say it was not? Let's be straightforward, Pat.
You said you liked the caption I first gave it: "The empires remained legally separate during the Union, but historians are divided over whether the Spanish Empire included the Portuguese Empire de facto." You oppose inclusion of the term "de facto". Fine. How about the rest? Have you changed your mind? SamEV (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
My problem with the statement that "historians are divided" is it gives the impression that there is some controversy about this in academia, when there is not. The controversy is entirely here at Misplaced Pages, as far as I can see. In fact, I would go so far as to say that claim of division itself would need to be sourced! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)
Will you stop playing games? If some historians say X, and others the opposite of X, we have division! It may be equal division, somewhat equal, or unequal, but we have division! You're being unconstructive again. SamEV (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Sam, I am not playing games. I am trying to have a serious discussion with you here. Please let's treat each others' replies with respect so we don't descend into another fight like the other day. I actually thought this discussion was going pretty well. I'm making the serious point that we should not give the impression there is some controversy about this in academia, and I believe that "historians are divided" suggests there is some controversy. "Historians describe the situation differently" would be a way of phrasing this without implying controversy. Too clumsy for the article, probably, but I'm just giving you an example. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What "situation", Pat? What is it that they describe differently? Would you please complete the thought? Never mind 'clumsiness'! SamEV (talk) 01:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
More alternatives:
"Historians describe differently the relationship between the Spanish and Portuguese Empires during the union of the Crowns"
"Historians describe differently the relationship between Spain and the Portuguese Empire during the union of the Crowns"
"Historians describe differently the relationship between Spain and the Portuguese colonies during the union of the Crowns"
"Historians describe differently the status of the Portuguese Empire(/colonies) under the rule of the Habsburg monarchs during the union of the Crowns"
"Historians describe differently the status of the Portuguese Empire(/colonies) under the rule of the Spanish Habsburg monarchs during the union of the Crowns"
Can I propose a deal? Both the images in the Spanish Empire and the Portuguese Empire pages would show the other's empire during the union in another colour, with a caption like "main colour - Spanish/Portuguese Empire. other colour - other territories of the Iberian Union (1580-1640)". That way it does not say if someone ruled the union or not. The presence of that map (there must be two because of the evolution of both empires) in both pages guarantee both perspectives (because the presence of an iberian union map in just one of the empires' top page will be viewed as if that empire included all territories).Câmara (talk) 01:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not all sure what you're saying, Câmara. But if you want to include the Spanish Empire in the Portuguese article, and you have the sources to back you up, do that. Just make sure not to misrepresent it as the majority opinion.
Here, the issue is that there's a very significant split among historians, with some saying that the PE came under Spanish domination. We're trying to present that in a neutral manner. SamEV (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Pat, this is becoming useless. Not one of those captions you just proposed addresses EHT's, and Trasamundo's, and Cosialscostells, and Jan's, and my et al.'s concern: many historians say the PE was under Spanish rule during the so-called Iberian Union. They constitute a significant view that must be explicitly presented. Understand? Now along with that, we can include whatever disclaimer you want. But skirting the issue won't do, and this is becoming useless. Maybe we should leave this till another day.
But for now, I propose this caption: "Many scholars assert that the Portuguese Empire came under Spanish rule during the Union." SamEV (talk) 01:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Words like "useless", "understand?" are not conducive to a polite, level-headed discussion. Please keep cool. If you are OK with me adding, along with my sources, "However, many other scholars note how the Empires were kept legally and administratively distinct." then I would be OK with that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Spare me your lectures.
Leave the sources for the main body of the article. Both arguments must be sourced there. Otherwise, I accept that version you just proposed. SamEV (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
All I am saying is that, if you read back our conversation, not once have I been condescending towards you or your arguments, but you have towards me several times. However, we are here to create an encyclopaedia, not to make friends, and it looks like we have a deal, at last. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick02:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Wait up: one minor modification - "Some historians assert that the Portuguese Empire came under Spanish rule during the Union, while others note how the Empires were kept legally and administratively distinct." Use of "some" is better than "many" in my view. Otherwise we'll just have to repeat "many" in both clauses which will look a bit silly. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Jokes aside, why is it so important for the Spanish or whoever is editing this article to include Brazil in their "empire"? I don't really see the point. There is very little, if anything Spanish about Brazil.. even if Portugal and Spain were under the same dynastic king for 80 years - this had very little repercussions in Brazil and its history and the early colonisers.. You would have to look hard to find one single Spanish commander in charge of anything in Brazil, be it territory or commerce, or whatever. In fact the land then was udner constant attack by the French and the Dutch and it was a mixture of natives, mixed-race, and Portuguese armies that expelled them, just to give one instance of how silly it seems to me to inculde Brazil in some kind of "Spanish Empire". In any case the dynastic union's repercussions in Brazil are minimal if not inexistent, and something that is not only unimportant in Brazil and Portugal as well as the rest of the World, but it seems to be a big deal for the Spanish . It seems to make them really happy, but it's almost autistic if not completely unreal. Maybe they need this to feel better? To further emphasise this article's outrageous POV, let's invert things and see how it looks like: What would happen if the Portuguese included the Spanish territories in their definition of the "portuguese empire" here on Misplaced Pages? I think the POrtuguese are as much entitled to do this as the Spanish.. however we all know how this is simply unreal. It's just not a historical fact. Brazil was never "Spanish", and it saddens me that the Spanish or whoever could believe such lie. It's historic revisionism at its best. And for a point which I can't really see? Everyone wants a piece of Brazil?
--89.180.1.93 (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
What about Why don't you create a login for yourself? You would be taken much more seriously if you did. and you have still have provided absolutely no references for it. Already we see how you trample WP:NPOV when you are interested in it, and it is is convenient for you.
In addition, I remember that the Junta de Hacienda de Portugal, formed by 8 Castilians and 6 Portuguese, prepared the Navy for the India, the provisioning of the north of Africa and the help of the coasts of Mina, Cape Verde and Brazil. Translate all this article (especially page 6 of the file) if you do not believe me. Trasamundo (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It is not a question of happiness nor feeling better, but a matter of verifiability (WP:V) and improving articles acording to references and sources. Following your logic, the Romans were never in Mesopotamia, because there are no remnants of that civilization today. Furthermore, I also remember that WP: NOTFORUM. Trasamundo (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trolling. I just don't have time to log in or whatever but can do it later. Trasamundo , what is the purpose of an article about the Portuguese finance system in the 1600?? I can't find any references to any Castillians anyway.. Besides, you are not disproving my point, quite the contrary your article seems to actually confirm it , the decisions were made in Portugal.. your article is not relevant to the point made anyway. THe commanders, chiefs of operation, etc were either Brazilian or Portuguese. This is well-known and written in every basic history book. ANyways, this is a question on how you define empires.. for me an empire nees to leave some kind of legacy. There is no spanish legacy in Brazil or any portuguese african colony. There was a dynastic union between Portugal and Spain. The Spanish claims to Portuguese territories based on this union are as valid as POrtuguese claims to Spanish territories. If Brazil was SPanish, North America or the Phillipines were Portuguese. It's just obvious. In fact, historically the Phillipines were "Portuguese" until the treaty of Madrid of 1750... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.181.33.43 (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
As I once asked Pat: was the territory of Egypt not part of the Roman Empire just because Egypt doesn't have a Romance culture?
As you know, Portugal and Spain demarcated their possessions, in which Portugal recognized North America as being part of the Spanish area. No one's saying that Spain claimed Brazil: only part of Brazil, as the borders were not settled until the Madrid (1750) and San Ildefonso (1777) treaties. And I don't disagree that those disputed areas can equally appear on both empires. The solution might be to indicate on the map that Amazonian Brazil was disputed between Spain and Portugal. Cheers. SamEV (talk) 05:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Briefly, the purpose of an article about the Portuguese finance system in the 1600, is to illustrate that the Junta da Fazenda de Portugal was created from the central government system of the Spanish Monarchy to control finances of Portugal, is therefore relevant the presence of 8 Castilians (page 5 of the file); this would not be possible if Portugal had been a completely independent kingdom. This article is a minimal example of everything I've collected, which I think you do not have read it.
for me an empire nees to leave some kind of legacy. this is against WP:NOTFORUM; The Spanish claims to Portuguese territories based on this union are as valid as POrtuguese claims to Spanish territories no comment, this is WP:OR. My comments follow in the section named Brazil and the Iberian Union. Trasamundo (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Compiling sources
I am going to be very clear.
In the political configuration of Spain of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, the King had an administrative system of Councils and Juntas for helping him to take decisions in all his dominions, every territory had its particular administration, and retained its proper legislation. As every kingdom, Castile, Aragon ... had its specific administration, then this was not an exclusive issue of the Portuguese territory. Therefore it did not have two realms: the Kingdom of Portugal and Spain, nor two different administrations (there were more), one for Spain and another for Portugal on the other side. Really, actually, There was a common administration for the whole entire Monarchy, and several particular administrations (Castile, Aragon, Portugal ...) for each one of the territories.
It shouldn't confuse Spain with Castile because Castile was one of the kingdoms of Spain, and Portugal was a kingdom associated with Castile, but not independent, since Portugal also formed a part of Spain and its Monarchy, alongside Castile, Aragon, Flemish territories...
Now I'm going to collect all sources:
1.-About the political configuration of Spain:
Historia de España, vol 5, directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara Ed. Labor, ISBN 84-335-9425-7 (page 196): «La España de los Austrias, lo mismo que la de los Reyes Católicos, no tiene unidad política». (Spain of the Austrias, the same as that of the Catholic Kings, it does not have political unit).
Felipe IV: El hombre y el reinado, written by José N. Alcalá-Zamora, Real Academia de la Historia (Spain), published by CEEHpágina 137: «Así Felipe IV era cabeza de un conglomerado de coronas, reinos y estados de la más variada caracterización jurídica. Y en cada uno de ellos el monarca reinaba con diferente título y con distintos y desiguales poderes. Coloquial y literariamente estaba extendida la expresión "Rey de España" o "de las Españas"; usándose indistinta y frecuentemente el singular y el plural, en latín y en castellano, en los documentos reales, ya fueran despachos o cartas.Por otra parte, en la documentación privativa de los distintos reinos y estados se utilizaba en ocasiones sólo el título regio del territorio de que se tratara Es precisamente esta -llamémosla- "constitución" interna de la Monarquía, que se fundamentaba en el estricto respeto a la configuración jurídica propia de los territorios que la integraban, la que intentó variar Olivares en su programa político.».(So, Philip IV was head of a conglomerate of crowns, kingdoms and states of the most diverse legal characterization. And in each of them, the monarch reigned with a different title and with different and unequal power It was extended literary and colloquially the expression "King of Spain" or "the Spains", used indistinctly and frequently the singular one and the plural, in Latin and Castilian language, in the royal documents, they were offices or letters. Furthermore, in the exclusive documentation of the different kingdoms and states, it is only occasionally used the royal title of the territory in question It is precisely this - we call it- internal "constitution" of the monarchy, which was based on strict respect for the legal configuration of the territories that they integrated it, which Olivares tried to vary in his political agenda).
España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada: escritos seleccionados, by John Huxtable Elliott, Universitat de València (2002), 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).
España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada: escritos seleccionados, by John Huxtable Elliott, Universitat de València (2002), 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).
Handbook of Bureaucracy by Ali Farazmand, published by CRC Press (1994), : «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).
Inside of Revista Criticón nº34 Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, Trevor J. DADSON quotes in the page 7 of the file: «...de manera que aunque todas se juntan en V. Magestad, cada vna está distinta de la otra. Y como limites vnicos para distinguirlas, conserua V. M. entre ellas sus competencias».(So that, though all of them (the crowns) come together in V. Majesty, each one is different from the other. And only limits to distinguish retains V. M. including their competences).
Castile is not the same concept that Spain:
España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada: escritos seleccionados, by John Huxtable Elliott, Universitat de València (2002), 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. 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. 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).
Inside of Revista Criticón nº34 Université de Toulouse-Le Mirail, Trevor J. DADSON quotes in the pages 5-6 of the file: «Otro aspecto importante del memorial del pleito es la distinción que se hace constantemente entre Felipe III como Rey de la monarquía española y como Rey de Castilla. Felipe III tiene el deber de mantener los privilegios de la Corona de Castilla, pero, a la vez, la obligación cde velar por los intereses de la monarquía española en su totalidad.». (Another important aspect about the brief of the lawsuit is the distinction that is done constantly between Philip III like King of the Spanish monarchy and as King of Castile. Philip III has a duty to keep the privileges of the Crown of Castile, but at the same time, the obligation of ensure the interests of the Spanish monarchy as a whole).
Central Government (Polisynodial system):
Historia de España, vol 5, directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara Ed. Labor, ISBN 84-335-9425-7 (page 201): «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).
España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada: escritos seleccionados, by John Huxtable Elliott, Universitat de València (2002), page 73: «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» (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.)
The New Cambridge Modern History: The Old Regime, 1713-1763 written by J. O. Lindsay, published by Cambridge University Press, 1957, page 147: «In Habsburg Spain the government had been carried on by a mass of councils of which the most important had been the Council of State, which advised the king on foreign affairs Some councils dealt with the affairs of the Spanish dominions; these included the Council of Aragon, the Council of Italy, the Council of Flanders and the Council of the Indies, and for a time the Council of Portugal».
Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, written by Stephen J. Lee, published by Routledge (1984), pages 37-38 and I copy some fragments: «Yet, after the initial problem of the revolt of the comuneros of Castile in 1520, Spain continued to develop a basically stable constitution. The conciliar system, used by Ferdinand and Isabella to increase the power of the Crown, was the key. The gradual acquisition of an overseas empire by Castille led to an additional territorial council. In 1524 the Council of the Indies was set up to supervise the administration of Spain's colonies in America, and was partially modelled on the Council of Castile This assertion seems particularly appropiate to the period after 1580, when Spain acquired Portugal and a second overseas empire; ». The page 40 shows the Spanish Councils in the sixteenth century and that all these Councils did depend upon the Crown, and among them was the Council of Portugal with its viceroy, together with the Council of Aragon, of Flanders, of Castile ...
Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II written by Stafford Poole and published by University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 5-6-7 (page 5): «Though his son, Philip II (1556-98), is often styled king of Spain, and he thought of himself as such, his was not a unified state, nor was he an absolute monarch. The various kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula had their own financial regulations, currencies and customs barriers. As John Lynch observed, Fernando and Isabel gave Spain a common government but not a common administrarion. The king rule varied in structure and power from kingdom to kingdom, city to city Philip's power over Aragon was far more attenuated than it was over Castile. The various states were united only in the person of the king (page 6) Philip administered his kingdoms though a series of councils whose number grew from eleven to fourteen during his reign. These were of two kinds: territorial and nonterritorial. First in importance among the territorial councils were the Council od Castile (which was also the supreme judicial court, established in 1480) and the Council of State (1523-24). The latter was concerned primarly with foreign affairs. The other territorial councils were the Indies (1524), Italy (1555), Portugal (1582), Flanders (1588) and Aragon (1494) (page 7) In the last half of the sixteenth century, Castile emerged as the paramount force in the Spanish states and the one to which the good of the others was subordinated ».
In a compilation of writings of the year 1788, we see Instrucción que se dio al Señor Felipe Quarto sobre materias de gobierno de estos reynos y sus agregados that in its page 211, we read «los reinos, señor, de Portugal son sin duda de lo mejor que hay en España» (the kingdoms, sir, of Portugal are undoubtedly the best there is in Spain), and in the pages 195-196 we have the general description of the polisynodial system of Councils, and especially in the page 196 we read: «Es el primero el Consejo Real, el de Cámara, el de Indias, el de Órdenes, el de Hacienda, el de Cruzada, respecto de las demás coronas agregadas a ésta, el de Aragón, el de Flandes, el de Portugal', el de Italia; está también el de la Inquisición, que es común a los reinos de Castilla, Aragón e Indias; y el de Estado, que es el primero, porque en él se tratan todas las materias universales de la Monarquía, que se constituyen de todos los reynos referidos, y que miran a la trabazón, y unión de todo este sujeto, que se compone de ellos.» (The first is the Royal Council, that of the Chamber, that of the Indies, that of the Orders, that of the Treasury, that of the Crusade, with respect of the other crowns aggregated to this one , that of Aragon, that of Flanders, that of Portugal, that of Italy, it is also the Council of the Inquisition, which is common to the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon and the Indies, and that of the State, which is the first one, because it addresses all the universal matters of the Monarchy, which are constituted of all the above-mentioned kingdoms and they (the universal matters) concern to the link, and and union of all this subject, which consists of them, which is composed of them (the kingdoms).).
2.-Portugal associated with Castile:
La Europa dividida. 1559-1598, by J.H. Elliot, Ed. siglo XXI (1973) ISBN 84-323-0116-7 pages 284-285 writes: «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 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 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).
España y sus Coronas. Un concepto político en las últimas voluntades de los Austrias hispánicos, Enrique San Miguel Pérez . Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho nº 3. págs. 253-270. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Complutense de Madrid, page 264, quotes Philip II's will (and others kings) «que los dichos reynos de la Corona de Portugal ayan siempre de andar y anden juntos y unidos con los reynos de la Corona de Castilla, sin que jamás se puedan dividir ni apartar» (That the above mentioned kingdoms of the Crown of Portugal exist always of going and go together and joined with the kingdoms of the Crown of Castile, without they could never divide nor separate )
3.-Portugal as part of Spain and its Monarchy:
España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada: escritos seleccionados, by John Huxtable Elliott, Universitat de València (2002), 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)
Historia y civilización: Escritos seleccionados by José María Jover Zamora, Marc Baldó i Lacomba and Pedro Ruiz Torres, published by Universitat de València (1997), page 79: «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 (also in original quote). In the same page 79 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» (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 national of common application to Castilians, Catalans or Portuguese).
Inside the same book, page 77 and other historians as Elliot 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" 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).
Atlas Histórico Mundial (its original title is DTV - Atlas zur Weltgeschichte) by Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, Ediciones Istmo (1986) ISBN 84-7090-005-6, 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). (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).)
Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II by Stafford Poole (2004), published by University of Oklahoma Press, page 102: « After 1580, with the absortion of Portugal, Philip would rule the entire Iberian Peninsula and the Portuguese empire in Brazil and the Far East».
Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492-1830 by John Huxtable Elliott (2006) published by Yale University Press page xviii: «The confinement of my story to Spanish, rather tan Iberian, America means the almost total exclusion of the Portuguese settlement of Brazil, except for glancing references to the sixty-year period, from 1580-1640, when it formed part of Spain's global monarchy.»
''The Revolutions of Europe: Being an Historical View of the European Nations from the Subversion of the Roman Empire in the West to the Abdication of Napoleon by Christophe Koch, Maximillian Samson Friedrich Schoell, Andrew Crichton (1839). Whittaker and co. page 98: «Charles V of Austria, grandson of Ferdinand, and his sucessor in the Spanish monarchy, added to that crown the Low Countries and Franche-Comté . Charles resigned the Spanish monarchy to his son Philip II which then comprehended the Low Countries the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily and Sardinia, the duchy of Milan, and the Spanish possessions in America. To the states which were left him by his father, 'Philip added the kingdom of Portugal with the Portuguese possessions in Africa Asia and America, but this was the termination of his prosperity».
The Epic of Latin America John Armstrong Crow (1980). 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)
Enclaves amérindiennes: les "réductions" du Canada, 1637-1701 by Marc Jetten, published by Les éditions du Septentrion (1994) page 20: «En 1580, à l'occasion de l'anexion du Portugal et de ses colonies à l'empire espagnol, le gouvernement de l'ancienne possesion portugaise de Brésil de destitué». (In 1580, during the anexion Portugal and its colonies to the Spanish Empire, the government of the former Portuguese possession of Brazil is removed)
Philip IV and the Government of Spain, 1621-1665, written by R. A. Stradling published by Cambridge University Press (2002), p.153: «and around 1580 - Ironically at the time that the Philippine empire achieved optimum size and the Spanish System definitive form, with the annexation of Portugal».
In The Challenge of Hegemony: Grand Strategy, Trade, and Domestic Politics written by Steven E. Lobell, published by University of Michigan Press (2005), page 129 we read «In 1580, Spain acquired Portugal and its extensive empire in Brazil and the East Indies.» And in the page 133 mencions «The Duth used the years of the Spanish-Dutch Truce (1609-21) to consolidate and extend their gains in the East and West Indies at the expense of Spain's Portuguese empire». Trasamundo (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
If the sources that I have provided, some of them from the same epoch, affirm that the internal constitution of the Spanish Monarchy was based in the respect of the legislations, administrations and juridical systems of all the kingdoms and territories that were composing the Monarchy, it is absurd to say that Portugal was independent because it was legally and juridically different, when all the kingdoms of the Monarchy were juridically and legally different one of others. The problem arises when it is not recognized the composed character of the Monarchy of the Austrias, and there is ignored that the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon legally had its own administration.
According to these sources, there would be necessary to change the commentary of the map, replacing the verb come under for aggregate into Spanish Monarchy, because it is more accurate, this way, it turns out to be: Some historians assert that the Portuguese Empire aggregated into Spanish Monarchy during the union, while others note how the empires were kept legally and administratively distinct.Trasamundo (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, do not blaspheme, we are at Christmas :-). Secondly, it is not a essay, is a collection of all the sources that I have providded and they were dispersed and with difficult access, if I have strained in looking for them, to translate them and to write them, won't you make you the effort to read them calmly?. Finally, what about of changing a bit the commentary of the map as I have alluded above?. Trasamundo (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Your proposal ("aggregated into") is rather clumsy English. I do agree with the assessment that Portugal was just another kingdom alongside Castile, Aragon etc, and "Spain" is a rather loose term for the period in question. However, historians do use it. And, I think, this is how our problem begins: over the meaning of "Spain" and "Spanish". Does "Spain" mean Castile+Aragon+Navarre+Portugal, or just Castile+Aragon+Navarre? It depends on the historian. That is why I personally prefer labelling the joint Spanish-Portuguese empire as "Habsburg" - that is the common link between all the kingdoms - the monarch. (But at least two sources I have seen label the empire the "Spanish-Portuguese Empire".) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick03:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not too happy with it, Sam, and I think that it would have been better to propose here first before making the edit. Whilst I have seen many sources from you guys making sweeping statements that Portugal was added to the Spanish Empire, I haven't seen any details on the specifics of how the empires were not kept distinct? To me, as I note above in my reply to Trasamundo, the disagreement amongst historians is not about the logistics of the union, it's about nomenclature (what does "Spanish" mean exactly?). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick03:11, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I thought the wording we both found acceptable last night was fine. Again, I really think that this hinges on different interpretations of "Spain", and I'm seeing that Trasamundo, despite being extremely windy, makes some excellent points. Let me ask you this (it's not meant to be a trick question) - do you agree that the overseas empire of Kingdom of Castile and the overseas empire of the Kingdom of Portugal were legally and administratively separate during the Union? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick03:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, we no longer agree on that wording, plainly.
Were the empires legally separate? Probably. Administratively? No. Two months ago I read a discussion mainly between Ogre and Trasamundo at Commons. The sources amazed me, and I came away convinced that Portugal was indeed administratively integrated into the Spanish Empire, whatever the legal niceties (and reality, to whatever extent). The way I understand it, Portugal and its colonies retained much autonomy as part of what could perhaps be termed a 'federation'. SamEV (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
How about this wording? It is a bit clumsy but if we can agree on the general idea, we can clean it up. I think it is essentially what Trasamundo is saying.
"The overseas empires of the Kingdoms of Castile and Portugal were kept legally and administratively separate during the period of the union. However, the term "Spain" is used by some historians to mean all of the Habsburg kingdoms, while other historians exclude Portugal. Therefore some historians group the Portuguese colonies under the "Spanish" Empire during the union, and others do not.
Per what I just wrote above, I object to the first sentence, which is the crux of it. I'd also like to read Trasamundo's opinion before firmly committing one way or the other. SamEV (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure, let's wait for Trasamundo. But, in the meantime, do you have any references you can show me which refute my statement that Castile's and Portugal's overseas territories were not integrated? Here is a reference which supports what I write above about Castile vs Portugal
“
By the agreement reached with the Cortes, Philip guaranteed that the two overseas empires would remain entirely separate, that Castilians would not be appointed to offices in Portugal...and that the borders between Portugal and Castile would be opened to commerce....So anxious was Philip to acquire the Portuguese Crown and have access to the port of Lisbon that he agreed to a series of conditions at the Cortes of Tomar which largely insulated Portugal from being Castillianised. Portugal and its empire were to remain separate so that direct Castilian influence was to be kept to a minimum.
”
Do you have references which contradict this? I would honestly be interested to read them, because I do feel that Trasamundo has helped me "see the light" here, that we are really arguing about the definition of "Spanish" and not the empires. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick04:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm afraid you misunderstood. I did not assert that the PE was integrated with the Castilian Empire. I wrote "Spanish Empire".
And yet... I believe Trasamundo showed sources that do speak of the PE's coming under Castilian control; I saw them at Commons and/or here. I'll look for them tomorrow.
About the definition of "Spain", here's my own understanding, Pat.
"Spain" back then meant the Iberian Peninsula. The Catholic monarchs consciously sought its reunification and thereby the territorial reconstitution of the Visigothic monarchy. This was finally achieved by Philip II. He was therefore known in his time as "King of Spain". Under his grandson that Spain became once again divided as Portugal regained its independence: But What we now call "Spain" was/is the primary successor state of that Spain. You get what I'm saying: there is continuity between "Spain" then, and "Spain" since, right down to our day. It simply lost a big part of it (Portugal and its empire) along the way. It happens.
Castile was one part of that Spain, that's true; yet its position was undeniably dominant, so that there is often an identity of "Castile" and "Spain".
There's nothing I contradict in what you quoted. Those were the promises Philip II made. He largely kept them. His successors did not. SamEV (talk) 05:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Patrick before this gets bigger let simplify what is Spain, lets make like a comparison to UK ok? England = Castille, Wales = Aragon, Scotland = Portugal. Spain before meant all of the iberian peninsula, but since the lands of the catholic monarchs, hasburgs and their succesors (bourbons) included most of Iberia, they named their country "Spain", well at least in their titles and now Spain is the big country in Iberian which occupies 85% of it, its not really that complicated. Spain however lost Portugal, portugal broke away i guess you can say. Had the kings been portguese (like scottish kings in england) maybe they would have controlled all of Spain--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Looking forward to seeing your sources. Regarding "Spain", we must reflect modern day terminology, and in many (most?) history books on the subject you will find in the index an entry for "Philip II, King of Spain" and then another entry "Philip I, King of Portugal (see Philip II, King of Spain)". If Spain=Portugal, then how can that be? If Spain=Portugal, why do 137 sources use the term "Spanish-Portuguese Empire"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick13:12, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
That said, I do also agree that some sources note that the degree of Spanish intervention increased over time. e.g. here is a source that says so and this goes into specifics on how that was the case (whilst still saying how the Habsburgs respected the separation "on the whole"). So I would be comfortable with noting how the empires were kept separate de jure, and at first, de facto, but the degree of Spanish control increased during the period of the union. (Incidentally, there was never any Spanish control over Macau, which is how it ended up with its motto ). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick13:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Before a semantic discussion begins, I must say that the problem that I have, is that, though I can try to express ideas based on sources, I do not know place the exact word with its correct semantic connotation and implications, to achieve effective neutrality. What is the purpose of this proposal? I believe that the aim is how to show both viewpoints of the most accurate way, to comment on the famous map, and to this issue I'm going to center. According to recent SamEV and Pat Ferrick's commentaries in this epigraph, both go approximately in the same way, so it should not be difficult to express it.
I propose the following topics:
Remark of the map: I am going to indicate inside "" the different possibilities in order that the idea should be understood. Yellow – the , but some historians assert that the Portuguese Empire into Spanish Monarchy , while others clearly the . So, the specificity of Portugal is highlighted, something that nobody denies. In addition, I note that come under is associated to submit or subjugated,
Adding the previous quoted in the introduction/preamble of the article, highlighting the configuration of the Spain of the Hapsburgs.
I would add that the ideological notion and the political configuration of Spain have changed along its history: the monarchy of the Austrias is different from the Bourbons one, and both are different from the liberal Spain of the 19th century, also different from the second republic, they all are stages of the same historical process, and the monarchy of the Austrias represents the stage of gestation of Spain. And the Spanish empire is a mirror of this process, so there must be agreement between Spain and its empire. On the other hand, we note the friendship between the Castilians and the Portuguese in the battle of Aljubarrota.
That map is excellent, Trasamundo: you have my full support for its use at Iberian Union and wherever else. It clearly reflects the actual extent of the Empires at the time, rather than their overly grand claims. One suggestion though: for the reader, I think that labelling territories is very useful, like I did at my File:The British Empire.png. I also think that, instead of making these tiny dots for places like Goa and Macau, it's better to indicate with a marker (like Hong Kong and Gibraltar in my map). In terms of the caption, I like your suggestions, and I find myself agreeing with your very reasonable stance, though the English needs cleaning up a little. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick18:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Pat, you are hereby issued a rain check on sources and the matter of definition of "Spain"; meanwhile, though, I refer you to what Trasamundo just wrote concerning the continuity of nation and empire.
I was going to express my agreement with this sentence that you wrote: "So I would be comfortable with noting how the empires were kept separate de jure, and at first, de facto, but the degree of Spanish control increased during the period of the union." But I see that Trasamundo's proposal incorporates the ideas in it and that you agree with him.
Trasamundo, do you believe that the PE remained legally distinct or autonomous or independent throughout 1580-1640? How about administratively? I'll accept your opinion no matter which way it goes.
However, your answer won't change this fact: I accept your proposed changes to the caption, right down to replacing the phase "came under Spanish rule".
The Philip II map looks good, but I again agree with Pat's recommendation that you add labels to each dot.
I'm sorry I wasn't here in time to respond before it was 12 grapes time. :(
The issue is not easy to define by scholars: Portugal as kingdom was independent with respect to Castile, Aragon... But it was not independent as part-section of the Spanish Monarchy and its political configuration as a whole. I support this mentioned quote above: Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II written by Stafford Poole and published by University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 5-6-7 (page 5): «Though his son, Philip II (1556-98), is often styled king of Spain, and he thought of himself as such, his was not a unified state, nor was he an absolute monarch. The various kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula had their own financial regulations, currencies and customs barriers. As John Lynch observed, Fernando and Isabel gave Spain a common government but not a common administration. The king rule varied in structure and power from kingdom to kingdom, city to city». So, whith its own-proper administration every kingdom-territory had its own-proper laws, institutions, taxes...
In response to what you said on my talk page, I agree that we should write a couple of sentences about the denomination and characteristics of the Spanish Monarchy in the lead.
Specifically, the fact that Portugal was not unique in the fact that it had its own institituions — Castile and Aragon had them, too. But all formed part of the overarching Spanish monarchy or Spain, under the same authority, the same king. The period 1580-1640 was one phase of the Spanish Monarchy/Spain (the phase during which it included the whole peninsula), 1640-1700 another phase, 1700-1808 still another, etc.
Well, this is how I'd translate the caption version you posted on my talk:
Yellow – The Portuguese Empire during the period of 1580–1640 (Iberian Union). The Portuguese Empire kept its own administration and jurisdiction, but some historians assert that it was integrated into the Spanish Monarchy; others draw a clear distinction between the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire.
I don't think this is good English: an empire cannot be "integrated into" a monarchy. A monarchy is a system of government, while an empire is a set of territories. (Britain is not integrated into the British monarchy!) An empire can come under the control of or be controlled/governed/administered/ruled by a monarchy though. I would suggest The Portuguese Empire kept its own administration and jurisdiction during the union but some historians label the empires of both nations under the Hapsburgs as "Spanish". Others draw a distinction between the Portuguese and Spanish Empires.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I was translating from this: Amarillo- Territorios portugueses/Imperio portugués durante el periodo de 1580-1640/durante el periodo de la unión ibérica (1580-1640). El imperio portugués mantuvo su propia administración y jurisdición, pero algunos historiadores aseguran que el Imperio Portugués se integró en la monarquía española, mientras otros distinguen claramente el imperio Portugués del imperio español.
I suggest you take it up with Trasamundo, then. When he gets back to us on that, I'll offer any counter-proposal I might. SamEV (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. Thanks for finally archiving this page, Pat. SamEV (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
A quick look online for sources of information gave me this:
An excerpt:
Em 1581, Felipe 2º tornou-se rei de duas coroas, delegando o governo de Portugal a um vice-rei espanhol. No entanto, os portugueses procuraram resguardar certas prerrogativas em relação às suas colônias, apresentando uma lista de exigências ao novo rei, o que deu origem, em 1581, ao Juramento de Tomar.
Por meio deste documento, Felipe 2º assumia uma série de compromissos com o povo português, entre os quais a manutenção da exclusividade de navios portugueses no comércio colonial, a permanência de funcionários portugueses no plano administrativo; o respeito às leis e aos costumes, bem como o compromisso da preservação da língua portuguesa.
Além disso, a principal cláusula de compromisso reportava-se à colônia, vetando aos espanhóis a possibilidade de intromissão nos negócios portugueses com suas possessões de além-mar. Dessa forma, estabeleceu-se uma incorporação de Portugal aos quadros da coroa espanhola, mas procurou-se preservar sua independência legal e administrativa. Esta anexação no campo formal resguardou a relação de Portugal com o Brasil, buscando manter a política do exclusivo colonial.
translation:
In 1581, Filipe II became the King of two crowns, delegating Portugal's government to a Spanish vice-King. Nevertheless, the POrtuguese tried to keep some exclusive rights and privileges, and presented a list of demands to the new King, which was on the basis of the Juramentos de Tomar (Tomar Owths).
In this document, Filipe II assumed a series of compromises towards the Portuguese people, among which were keeping colonial trade in the exclusivity of POrtuguese ships, the permanence of Portuguese servants in the administration, the respect of law, and a compromise towards the portuguese language.
Besides that, the main Clause of this document referred to the overseas colony, vetoing the Spanish any kind of possibility of intrusion in POrtuguese business in her possessions overseas. This way, Portugal was incorporated in the Spanish crwom, but a legal and administrative independence was preserved. The character of this annexation saved the relationship between Portugal and Brazil, with Portugal trying to keep exclusiveness in the colony.
You have provided only-web source, but this does not resemble according to WP:RELIABLE, you must also read Misplaced Pages:Reliable source examples to provide a reliable source: Scholars doing research publish their results in books and journal articles. The books are usually published by university presses or by commercial houses. So your provided source would be discard, according to WP:V (Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed).
Nevertheless, I have read and I have noticed these two phrases: Sob domínio espanhol, colônia sofreu invasões estrangeiras (this is the title), and Dessa forma, estabeleceu-se uma incorporação de Portugal aos quadros da coroa espanhola, mas procurou-se preservar sua independência legal e administrativa. Do you know which were these organizational schemes of the Spanish crown?, do they appear in the "basic history books" that you examine?. Since I already have explained this matter several times, read these remarks here, here and here they are easily understandable and I do not have to return to repeat them, and you will see reliable sources there as Instrucción que se dio al Señor Felipe Quarto sobre materias de gobierno de estos reynos y sus agregados. Qui habet aures audiendi audiat.
Case closed?, Are you a judge here?. Take time to read the Misplaced Pages policy and the previous commentaries, and notice if what you want to comment, already has been done and has been answered and has been based with sources, in order to avoid to lengthen unnecessarily this talk page, without improve the article. Trasamundo (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you joking? Case closed was just a funny remark. The source provided is written by someone with a PhD in History and the material is online as part of the educational UOL project to help Brazilian students on a secondary level pass their exams. I showed it as an example, you just have to open any basic history book and read it. If you need a more reliable source, report to the Juramentos de Tomar document itself. --89.180.68.66 (talk) 16:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi anon user =] while i read your comment, i dont undertstand what you are trying to prove here, are you saying you want Brazil off the map? if that is so, im afraid it can't be done because Brazil belonged to Portugal and Portugal belonged to Spain (not to Castille) from 1580-1640--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, history is a fact, what changes is interpretations about it. Brazil belonged to Portugal and Portugal belonged to the Habsburg monarchy, as Spain, but Portugal was never spanish in the modern concept of Spain, as most historians (just say a number of how many you want, I started by the book I referred above, from a recognized expert in the Portugal of this time period) refer Spain's formation as of Charles I. Just because some historians (even the best ones) say one thing that does not mean that is true, we have to reach a consensus on that. For example I saw in some books that Labrador was named after "laboratoris", and this word originated from "slave work", surely influenciated by Cantino's description of Corte Real presentation of his discoveries in North America to king Manuel I of Portugal. However the name came from João Fernandes, nicknamed "Lavrador" (=farmer, not landholder as I see all the time, another example...). Now is it correct to say the origin of the name Labrador is under dispute? Historians may be wrong, and they're human, so they are wrong a lot of times, that's normal. In this case, the historians that say Portugal was separated from Spain say why, for example the exclusivity of portuguese people to portuguese positions, even Philip's special signature as king of Portugal (I may scan his spanish and portuguese signatures to you, if you want) and this is not original work as it was referred by authors (Bouza 2008, Olival 2008, that show why and how, at least). If some historians says Castille was part of Navarrese empire do you thing we should put a note on the map saying that some historians say Castille was part of the Navarrese empire? Let's see the references you put that says Portugal was part of Spain:
Handbook of Bureaucracy by Ali Farazmand, published by CRC Press (1994)"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;"
Portugal was not added to his kingdom because Portugal was a kingdom itself and it was recognized as that by the Cortes of Tomar (Bouza 2008), "siempre um Reino de por sí", and the kingdom of Spain did not existed (how many do you want for this one again?), it is referred as the personal union of Castile and Aragon (Bouza 2008, how many do you want?)
The New Cambridge Modern History: The Old Regime, 1713-1763 written by J. O. Lindsay, published by Cambridge University Press, 1957, page 147: «In Habsburg Spain the government had been carried on by a mass of councils of which the most important had been the Council of State, which advised the king on foreign affairs Some councils dealt with the affairs of the Spanish dominions; these included the Council of Aragon, the Council of Italy, the Council of Flanders and the Council of the Indies, and for a time the Council of Portugal ».
Why does he use the wording "spanish dominions"? Does he explain? Or is he wanting to refer dominions of Spanish Habsburgs?
Historia de España, vol 5, directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara Ed. Labor, ISBN 84-335-9425-7 (page 201): «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).
The common councils were the external affairs only, the administration of Portugal was done by the council of Portugal. (Bouza 2008, your source).
Aspects of European History, 1494-1789, written by Stephen J. Lee, published by Routledge (1984), pages 37-38 and I copy some fragments: «Yet, after the initial problem of the revolt of the comuneros of Castile in 1520, Spain continued to develop a basically stable constitution. The conciliar system, used by Ferdinand and Isabella to increase the power of the Crown, was the key. The gradual acquisition of an overseas empire by Castille led to an additional territorial council. In 1524 the Council of the Indies was set up to supervise the administration of Spain's colonies in America, and was partially modelled on the Council of Castile This assertion seems particularly appropiate to the period after 1580, when Spain acquired Portugal and a second overseas empire; ». The page 40 shows the Spanish Councils in the sixteenth century and that all these Councils did depend upon the Crown, and among them was the Council of Portugal with its viceroy, together with the Council of Aragon, of Flanders, of Castile ...
Spain never acquired Portugal as a second overseas empire as they were kept distinct by the Cortes of Tomar by the exclusive appointment of portuguese people to justice, taxes, portuguese imperial government, etc and the council of Portugal, that was the only one that administrated Portugal, no other "external one" dealt with that. (Bouza 2008)
Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II written by Stafford Poole and published by University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 5-6-7 (page 5): «Though his son, Philip II (1556-98), is often styled king of Spain, and he thought of himself as such, his was not a unified state, nor was he an absolute monarch. The various kingdoms on the Iberian Peninsula had their own financial regulations, currencies and customs barriers. As John Lynch observed, Fernando and Isabel gave Spain a common government but not a common administrarion. The king rule varied in structure and power from kingdom to kingdom, city to city Philip's power over Aragon was far more attenuated than it was over Castile. The various states were united only in the person of the king (page 6) Philip administered his kingdoms though a series of councils whose number grew from eleven to fourteen during his reign. These were of two kinds: territorial and nonterritorial. First in importance among the territorial councils were the Council od Castile (which was also the supreme judicial court, established in 1480) and the Council of State (1523-24). The latter was concerned primarly with foreign affairs. The other territorial councils were the Indies (1524), Italy (1555), Portugal (1582), Flanders (1588) and Aragon (1494) (page 7) In the last half of the sixteenth century, Castile emerged as the paramount force in the Spanish states and the one to which the good of the others was subordinated ».
I referred above in another post why Portugal was not subordinated to Castille. (Its Bouza who says it, not me). Again the council of Portugal dealt with Portugal, Castille did not administrated Portugal.
In a compilation of writings of the year 1788, we see Instrucción que se dio al Señor Felipe Quarto sobre materias de gobierno de estos reynos y sus agregados that in its page 211, we read «los reinos, señor, de Portugal son sin duda de lo mejor que hay en España» (the kingdoms, sir, of Portugal are undoubtedly the best there is in Spain), and in the pages 195-196 we have the general description of the polisynodial system of Councils, and especially in the page 196 we read: «Es el primero el Consejo Real, el de Cámara, el de Indias, el de Órdenes, el de Hacienda, el de Cruzada, respecto de las demás coronas agregadas a ésta, el de Aragón, el de Flandes, el de Portugal', el de Italia; está también el de la Inquisición, que es común a los reinos de Castilla, Aragón e Indias; y el de Estado, que es el primero, porque en él se tratan todas las materias universales de la Monarquía, que se constituyen de todos los reynos referidos, y que miran a la trabazón, y unión de todo este sujeto, que se compone de ellos.» (The first is the Royal Council, that of the Chamber, that of the Indies, that of the Orders, that of the Treasury, that of the Crusade, with respect of the other crowns aggregated to this one , that of Aragon, that of Flanders, that of Portugal, that of Italy, it is also the Council of the Inquisition, which is common to the kingdoms of Castile, Aragon and the Indies, and that of the State, which is the first one, because it addresses all the universal matters of the Monarchy, which are constituted of all the above-mentioned kingdoms and they (the universal matters) concern to the link, and and union of all this subject, which consists of them, which is composed of them (the kingdoms).).
The "Spain" thing, I'll end with this.
La Europa dividida. 1559-1598, by J.H. Elliot, Ed. siglo XXI (1973) ISBN 84-323-0116-7 pages 284-285 writes: «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 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 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).
The "Spain" thing again, this is the point, and that's why Bouza and Olival always use "hispanic" and not "spanish".
España y sus Coronas. Un concepto político en las últimas voluntades de los Austrias hispánicos, Enrique San Miguel Pérez . Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho nº 3. págs. 253-270. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Complutense de Madrid, page 264, quotes Philip II's will (and others kings) «que los dichos reynos de la Corona de Portugal ayan siempre de andar y anden juntos y unidos con los reynos de la Corona de Castilla, sin que jamás se puedan dividir ni apartar» (That the above mentioned kingdoms of the Crown of Portugal exist always of going and go together and joined with the kingdoms of the Crown of Castile, without they could never divide nor separate )
Yes Philip wanted the crowns to be together. And?
* España en Europa: Estudios de historia comparada: escritos seleccionados, by John Huxtable Elliott, Universitat de València (2002), 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)
It seems in Spain the modern wording is "monarquía española". In Portugal it is "monarquia hispânica" (=/= monarquia espanhola). Why do they use that?
Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II by Stafford Poole (2004), published by University of Oklahoma Press, page 102: « After 1580, with the absortion of Portugal, Philip would rule the entire Iberian Peninsula and the Portuguese empire in Brazil and the Far East».
Philip, not Spain.
Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492-1830 by John Huxtable Elliott (2006) published by Yale University Press page xviii: «The confinement of my story to Spanish, rather tan Iberian, America means the almost total exclusion of the Portuguese settlement of Brazil, except for glancing references to the sixty-year period, from 1580-1640, when it formed part of Spain's global monarchy.»
Why?
The Revolutions of Europe: Being an Historical View of the European Nations from the Subversion of the Roman Empire in the West to the Abdication of Napoleon by Christophe Koch, Maximillian Samson Friedrich Schoell, Andrew Crichton (1839). Whittaker and co. page 98: «Charles V of Austria, grandson of Ferdinand, and his sucessor in the Spanish monarchy, added to that crown the Low Countries and Franche-Comté . Charles resigned the Spanish monarchy to his son Philip II which then comprehended the Low Countries the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily and Sardinia, the duchy of Milan, and the Spanish possessions in America. To the states which were left him by his father, 'Philip added the kingdom of Portugal with the Portuguese possessions in Africa Asia and America, but this was the termination of his prosperity».
Spain existed before Portugal, as this source says. So Spain+Portugal=Spain (again the point)? And this source only says Philip, not Spain...
'The Epic of Latin America John Armstrong Crow (1980). 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)
Why was Brazil part of the Spanish Empire? Does he explain?
* Enclaves amérindiennes: les "réductions" du Canada, 1637-1701 by Marc Jetten, published by Les éditions du Septentrion (1994) page 20: «En 1580, à l'occasion de l'anexion du Portugal et de ses colonies à l'empire espagnol, le gouvernement de l'ancienne possesion portugaise de Brésil de destitué». (In 1580, during the anexion Portugal and its colonies to the Spanish Empire, the government of the former Portuguese possession of Brazil is removed)
Portugal was not annexed as the council of governors of Portugal chosed Philip as the heir to the throne, the battle of Alcantara was just a between pretenders, most nobles supported Philip, Philip guaranteed Portuguese independence with the Cortes of Tomar. (Bouza 2008)
Philip IV and the Government of Spain, 1621-1665, written by R. A. Stradling published by Cambridge University Press (2002), p.153: «and around 1580 - Ironically at the time that the Philippine empire achieved optimum size and the Spanish System definitive form, with the annexation of Portugal».
See above.
In a compilation of writings of the year 1788, we see Conquista del Reyno de Portugal por el mejor derecho que tenía a su corona entre otros pretendientes, por muerte del Rey don Sebastián, el Señor Felipe II, siendo Generalísimo de sus armas el duque de Alva. About the duke of Alba we read in the page 190: «La conquista del reyno de Portugal coronó sus hazañas; parece que la divina Providencia lo había reservado para someter con este reyno quasi todo el Oriente a la Monarquía Española.» The conquest of the kingdom of Portugal crowned his feats; it seems that the divine providence had reserved him to submit with this kingdom (Portugal) almost the whole East to the Spanish Monarchy.)
Words of the XVI-XVII century, the point again.
In The Challenge of Hegemony: Grand Strategy, Trade, and Domestic Politics written by Steven E. Lobell, published by University of Michigan Press (2005), page 129 we read «In 1580, Spain acquired Portugal and its extensive empire in Brazil and the East Indies.» And in the page 133 mencions «The Duth used the years of the Spanish-Dutch Truce (1609-21) to consolidate and extend their gains in the East and West Indies at the expense of Spain's Portuguese empire »
How could Spain acquire an the portuguese empire if Portugal was still independent, separated, administrated by Portuguese people only? Does he explain? The Dutch-Portuguese war is another example, the war did not ended in 1640, the year Portugal is again an enemy of Spain, just like the Dutch.
As I said in the other post the problem here is that you cannot use the word Spanish to refer the Iberian Union, because in those times that was acceptable as they were the same meaning (that's why the duque de Alba uses this wording, as Camões, etc), now it isn't. Your sources don't say why the Portuguese Empire was part of the Spanish, of course they had the same foreign relations with other countries, however they were administrated separately. Castile, Aragon, Sicily, were also administrated separately. But the majority of historians (and I bet all of yours too, some do) use Spain as the personal union of Castille and Aragon. My sources say why/how Portugal was not administrated together with Castille, etc. So your sources are claiming that in 1580-1640 Portugal was part of Spain, but they do not explain why, my sources explain why/how it wasn't. Situation?Câmara (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Dear Câmara, it has already been shown that both points of view have been expressed by a significant number reliable sources. Therefore, per the principal content policy at Misplaced Pages, both need to be included. It would be the same for your hypothetical claim that Castile was part of Navarre. Thanks. SamEV (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
For User:Câmara. I cannot believe it, all your previous intervention is a sample of what is WP:SYN. Exhausted the speech of the wicked Spanish nationalism, now it turns whatever I dislike, is pseudohistory and barmy's tommyrots. How is it possible to hint that the pseudohistory is spread by Manuel Tuñón de Lara, Real Academia de la Historia, John Huxtable Elliott, Cambridge University Press, University of Oklahoma Press, Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho (Universidad Complutense de Madrid, where Bouza Álvarez teaches), Universitat de València Server de publications, University of Oklahoma Press, Yale University Press, University of California Press, University of Michigan Press?. I will not shut up, and I am going to comment in detail your intervention. Whence comes the synthesis? simple, you do not have clear the historical processes of the history of Spain.
I did the following statement: In the political configuration of Spain of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, the King had an administrative system of Councils and Juntas for helping him to take decisions in all his dominions, every territory had its particular administration, and retained its proper legislation. As every kingdom, Castile, Aragon ... had its specific administration, then this was not an exclusive issue of the Portuguese territory. Therefore it did not have two realms: the Kingdom of Portugal and Spain, nor two different administrations (there were more), one for Spain and another for Portugal on the other side. Really, actually, There was a common administration for the whole entire Monarchy, and several particular administrations (Castile, Aragon, Portugal ...) for each one of the territories.
It shouldn't confuse Spain with Castile because Castile was one of the kingdoms of Spain, and Portugal was a kingdom associated with Castile, but not independent, since Portugal also formed a part of Spain and its Monarchy, alongside Castile, Aragon, Flemish territories...
Later I did a compilation of sources according to WP:V, following a script, to support this affirmation, the script, which obviously you have ignored is the following one: 1.-About the political configuration of Spain (and more specifically: Castile is not the same concept that Spain, Polisynodial system), 2.-Portugal associated with Castile, 3.-Portugal as part of Spain and its Monarchy. Within each section, there are sources that support a certain idea, each source supports a portion of the affirmation, but each of them do not explain the whole assertion.
Since you have ignored the script, you try to see in every references I put that Portugal was part of Spain, and so, you ask for some sources: Does he explain?, And?, Why?, but every source supports and illustrates a part of my principal statement and what you must do, is to look for the answer in the suitable source, for it I put a script that, I repeat, you have ignored completely. Your sources don't say why the Portuguese Empire was part of the Spanish, then revise you very well what the polisynodial system consisted to that Portugal belonged to, alongside together with Castile, with Aragon, Flemish territories... but mysteriously while Portugal were administrated separately and it would be independent, other kingdoms were also administrated separately but they wouldn't be independent.
Mistakes that you have committed in your previous post:
The first mistake. You have indicated Castille did not administrated Portugal, and it is true, I also have indicated it, but from this assertion is deduced that Portugal was independent?, that is WP:SYN. You ignored Castilla was not the same as Spain, as I have quoted. Following your logic, Valencia has its own regional government and it does not administer Asturias, which has its own regional government, then is Asturias an independent territory of Spain?
The second mistake. I have noticed that of a phrase like Philip swore that is would maintain the privileges and liberties of the Portuguese, it can so much inventive synthesis, you same deduce that Portugal was in independent kingdom, as you indicate: In this case, the historians that say Portugal was separated from Spain say why, for example the exclusivity of portuguese people to portuguese positions, and so, because you are interested in it, you ignore the exclusivity of Aragonese, Milanese...
In your comments you only focus on Portugal, the exclusivity of Portugal: council of Portugal, that was the only one that administrated Portugal, exclusive appointment of portuguese people, administrated by Portuguese people only. Hereby it ignores the other parties, if we change Portugal to Aragon, we have the same contingency (Council of Aragon administrated by Aragonese people only), but with what criterion you establish that Aragon was Spanish, but Portugal was not. So for example, the King Philip II swore in 1564 in Valencia the jurisdictions, customs and privileges of the kingdom of Valencia. As your affirmations they are a fruit of synthesis, to quadrate your ideas from which Portugal had to be necessarily independent, you establish But the majority of historians use Spain as the personal union of Castille and Aragon., It is to generalize, I do not know if it is exactly WP:V, it sure is Misplaced Pages: Avoid weasel words, and that already I have seen mentioned in a previous of your affirmations: Swored prince in 1528, the year after his birth, since very young he was called prince of Spains, or Hispaniarum princeps, in a denomination that made reference to the personal union of the crowns of Aragon and Castile (...), and as I know to read, the text is speaking about 1528, not about 1580.
Also we have examples of your picturesque conclusions when supposedly Bouza quoted Philip guaranteed Portuguese independence with the Cortes of Tomar. I have a small article about the revolt of Portugal (1640), and the same Bouza mentions: En lo esencial, el Estatuto de Tomar fijaba los términos en que se debía producir la unión de Coronas que suponía la ascensión de un Austria al trono portugués esto significaba que Portugal debía mantener dentro de la Monarquía Hispánica el estatus preeminente de los dominios heredados Dentro de la monarquía de los Austrias Portugal mantuvo sus cortes particulares e íntegramente su orden y estilo previos - una estructura polisinódica muy compleja a la que se añadió el Consejo de Portugal que residiría en la corte junto al rey- (essentially, the Statute of Tomar set the terms in that the union of Crownns had to produce, that supposed the ascension of an Austria to the Portuguese throne this meant that Portugal had to keep inside the Hispanic Monarchy the pre-eminent status of the inherited domains Inside the monarchy of the Austrias Portugal retained its particular Cortes and entirely its previous order and style - a polisynodical structure very complex to that the Council of Portugal was added that it would reside in the court together with the king-). Again you confuse Spain with Castile, Portugal was independent of castilla. The independence of Portugal with respect of Spain produced in 1668.
This way you discredit yourself, since it is not possible to distinguish if your assertions are synthesis of your inventiveness or if really it is an referenced affirmation. So your theory does not agree itself, you support that Portugal had its own administration and because of it, it was independent, but you are ignoring the other territories of the Monarchy that each one of them had its own administration similar to Portugal, it is very curious and illuminating that none of you affirm that Portugal was independent opposite to Spain, nobody explains how it was the system of government of Spain as a whole.
The third mistake. Confusion between Monarchy and Kingdom, between monarch and king. I will treat this topic more in depth in another moment with sources. Of a general form, in Spain, in the XVIth and XVIIth century, Kingdom and King refer to a territory especially: king of Portugal, king of castilla, king of Valencia, King of Naples ..., whereas Monarchy is referred to the system of government that it harmonized all these kingdoms; in this respect, the correct term to refer to Spain is as Monarchy but not as kingdom. Portugal was a kingdom of the Spanish monarchy, not a kingdom belonging to a kingdom of Spain, but since you confuse Spain with Castile, there go out the conclusions that we read.
The fourth mistake. Ignoring the historical process in Spain.
We note your capacity of analysis when about The Revolutions of Europe: Being an Historical View of the European Nations from the Subversion of the Roman Empire in the West to the Abdication o39). Whittaker and co. page 98, the authors report the formation of the Spanish monarchy, and you deduce, of an inexplicable form, that the this source says that Spain existed before Portugal, and moreover, that this source only says Philip, not Spain, when meaningfully I put Charles V of Austria, grandson of Ferdinand, and his sucessor in the Spanish monarchy, added to that crownTo the states which were left him by his father, 'Philip added. I do not know how it is possible to misinterpret so much a paragraph.
It is not very clear, but it seems that the quid of your commentary is Portugal was never spanish in the modern concept of Spain, and therefore, the word Spain/Spanish cannot be used for describing this period: that you cannot use the word Spanish to refer the Iberian Union, because in those times that was acceptable as they were the same meaning (that's why the duque de Alba uses this wording, as Camões, etc), now it isn't. This is clearly W:OR, because itignores completely the historical process in Spain. But let's follow this logic and let's change Spain by France, would they have the same concept of France the revolutionaries of the late eighteenth century that the Early Capetian at the end of the 10th century?, according to your logic there would be necessary to begin the history of France in its current sense with the French revolution, and it would be necessary to invent a name for the territory that occupies the current sense of France for the epoch previous to the Revolution, in fact ancien régime would be a support this theory, but if Philip II Augustus adopted the title rex Franciae in 1190, then it should not be begun the history of France in this date, and adopt another name for the territory for before this date?
To the different periods of the history of Spain, the scholars name them in different ways, and to the period of the Austrias, there are scholars who name it Hispanic monarchy, others, the Spanish monarchy of the Austrias, and others, another name, and within this period they distinguish between major and minor Austrias (Hapsburgs), well then, but nobody cuts the history of Spain in 1580, but to the Philip II's death (1598), as indicates this article. You want to make coincide the history of Portugal with that of Spain: If the Spanish monarchy in 1556 had the same structure as in 1665, then with what sources do you pretend that the history of Spain disappears between 1580-1640, and replacing it with history of the Hispanic monarchy. And do you complain about pseudo history? when all your efforts are that Portugal was independent and therefore, you afford to discredit and accuse about pseudohistory to reliable sources.
Your last affirmations are simply a nonsense, also I will refute them:
-My sources say why/how Portugal was not administrated together with Castille, etc.: Mine also.
-So your sources are claiming that in 1580-1640 Portugal was part of Spain, that is to say, my sources claim that, and a more explicitly, that Portugal was a part of the common system of government that it integrated all these kingdoms-territories alongside each with other under the Monarch.
-but they do not explain why Yes, they explain it and it is the polisynodial system.
-my sources explain why/how it wasn't They only make clear that they were not subordinated to Castile, and that Portugal had its own administration, which are issues that already I also provided.
The situation is that you have not understood anything about what I wrote with its reliable sources: Portugal belonged to the Habsburg monarchy, as Spain is a misconceived assertion, Spain (or the Spains) was the territories of the Monarchy of the Spanish Hapsburgs, and Portugal a part of these territories temporarily.
Wait, where am I saying that there isn't a "centralized regime"? ...? (And yes, Castille and Aragon etc were independent from each other) As you know in those times this monarchy was called "Spanish" as it had the same meaning as Hispanic or Iberian. But using the name (note this is just a name problem) "Spanish Empire" today, when we have a different concept of "Spain", causes confusion (the most positive effect that can happen). That's why there are now words like Iberian Union, that didn't exist at that time, but historians created them for some reason, and that's why the names Denmark-Norway and Kalmar Union exist too. Again, this is a name problem because the meaning of "Spain" today changed (although I say again the castillian and the portuguese empires were never together). That's why this article will not be stable (locked icon hello?), but OK, if you want keep it as it is now, I can shut up, I have much to do, all I said was wrong, this is an awful OR and I was wrong in the encyclopedia (I do not want this to be used as an argument after this, let's use just historical arguments in the discussion). I won't comment here your last post sentence by sentence but I can comment it in your user page if you want. Off the record, I'll just ask you some quick questions, and please note that these ones are not to be used in a possible future discussion about this issue:
Why isn't the Holy Roman Empire in the map?
Why does the Iberian Union name exist?
Is Portugal's exclusivity granted by Philip II of Spain the same as any other of "this" monarchy?
Are historians always right? (This remembers me a lot the Columbus' article)
What do historians today say about the use of the name Spain to the Habsburg monarchy in this time period 1580/1581-1640?
As I said before, history is a fact, what changes are interpretations about it. I know you respect me but please do not say things like "you do not have clear the historical processes of the history of Spain", I know I'm not an Euro History Teacher, but please don't do it. I'll be here if you'll ever need me.Câmara (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Trasamundo, I appreciate that very much!
Câmara, you asked "who controls equal validity"? I say: we do. Who else? The decision won't come down from heaven. We're the ones (all of us, you included) who've taken this active an interest in the article, so we decide these things, by consensus. And when we can't, we'll turn to outside dispute resolution procedures.
But please keep in mind that we're not done. Going forward, among the adjustments that may be made is how each view is presented. Stop worrying about it. We'll be fair to both views. SamEV (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Câmara, I apologize inasmuch as I have addressed you without politely, but when I saw this post I got angry enormously. I should have used other words.
My determination has been to demonstrate that the kingdom of Portugal, with its empire, belonged to the Spanish empire, and I have provided sources to support this and how it. Nevertheless, as I admit that there are scholars who treat this issue from a point of view and other authors from another point of view, I do not see why you not. At the present time, my concern is to manage to explain in the article and to comment the map, so that both points of view should be included in order that the map and the article are stable precisely, thus, neither one nor the other change always the same issue. It is precisely what SamEV explained to you.
Already I indicated why it must not be included the Empire in Spain, (Crónica del Emperador Carlos V by es:Alonso de Santa Cruz (Alonzo de Santa Cruz): otros decían que pues España era exenta de los Emperadores que no se llamase en ella Emperador, porque más cosa era Rey de España que no Emperador de Alemania (others said that, since Spain belonged exempt from the Emperors, that was not called in it as Emperor, because more matter was King of Spain that not Emperor of Germany). Likewise the imperial title was more symbolic than effective: legally since the Confoederatio cum principibus ecclesiasticis and the tatutum in favorem principum, and since the interregnum, the effective power of the Reges romanorum depended on its patrimonial domains. There was no type of institution in Spain that established some link with the Reichskammergericht, Reichshofrat, or Reichstag. On the contrary the Castilian Cortes of Santiago and Corunna of 1520, those of Valladolid of 1523, those of Madrid of 1528, those of Toledo of 1538, show the preoccupations that the money granted to the King (Servicios) was used in the matters of the Empire. Since the monarchy of Carlos V is different from that of Philip II, the Burgundian territories did not belong to Spain, and with the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 transformed this agglomeration of lands into a unified entity, of which the Habsburgs would be the heirs.
As such, the period of 1580-1640, also named Iberian Union or Spanish-Portuguese Empire, has a specific importance in the history of Portugal, both years are changes in the historical Portuguese processes, nevertheless this is not such in the history of Spain, the year 1580 does not suppose any change of historical development of Spain, but it is the year 1598 with Philip II's death. On the other hand, in the History of the world, during the Age of Discovery, when the same monarch ruled over territories along the whole world in the 16th century, of course it is an event for itself, and deserving of a special epithet. If these historians do not worry about the internal organization of Spain in this epoch, it does not have to implicate thas other scholars worry about it. Trasamundo (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Map (again)
OK, I've kept quiet about it long enough. I have added a "disputed" tag to the map box because Sabah and the north of New Guinea were never part of the Spanish Empire. This needs to be corrected. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh come on you have to be kidding me! I have already shown sources showing Sabah and parts of New Guinea (the spanish even claimed it and they even named the island) as being part of the SE. Look at the sources in the archives--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:26, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
The source is not from the University of Texas. It is from an almost 100 year old atlas by William R. Shepherd. It suffers from the same problems as those I outlined in your depiction of the Portuguese Empire. It is simply not true that the Portuguese Empire included the entirety of the east Indian coastline and all of the eastern Malay coast and northern Sumatran coast. I have provided a variety of maps at Talk:Iberian Union which confirm that I am not just making this up, and I have challenged you to provide written references which back Shepherd's map up. You did not do so. Can you provide any other maps or written references for the Spanish control of the entirety of Sabah or northern New Guinea? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it is , well at least from the library of the UNI of Texas.
You said : "and I have challenged you to provide written references which back Shepherd's map up. You did not do so."
When in the world did you "challenged" me to do the specified above?!Are you just making stuff up? and since im leaving, just to leave you wondering, why do the Phillipines claim Sabah?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This is complex, but the Philippines claim Sabah because it was historically part of Sulu, and Sulu became part of the Philippines.:
In 1850-1, Spain attacked - but did not occupy - Jolo in the Sulu archipelago.
In 1876, Spain returned to finish the job, now leaving a military garrison in Jolo.
In 1878 the Sultan of Sulu ceded Sabah to the British North Borneo Chartered Company, despite Spanish protestations that the Sultan was a Spanish vassal.
In 1885, Spain agreed to acknowledge British claims to Sabah in return for acknowledgement of its claim to Sulu.
The Spanish OCCUPIED/OWNED Sabah before 1800s, I don't mean to be disrespectful to you Ferrick but this is exactly what i dislike when people think they have the reason to dictate something because they never heard or know about, leave Sabah red because it formed part of the SE lands, if you agree to put the Sabah in pink as claimed you might also want to included half the world in pink (torsedilla claim) and the rest in yellow (portuguese torsedilla claim), i know it sounds dumb but we got to work with logic here. Don't kill yourself (and don't take me with you) over Sabah--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:22, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry but your response is not good enough, as you are saying "take my word for it and tough ---- if you don't believe me". This is not how Misplaced Pages works. Show me a written reference stating that the Spanish "occupied/owned" Sabah before the 1800s. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Show me where i specifically said that? i don't even know how you got the idea of "take my word for it and tough ---- if you don't believe me". Before you actually try to change anything look at the map from the Uni of Texas Library (which shows Spanish lands in red BEFORE the 1800s) , then go look at the SE maps in Misplaced Pages and get an idea (i suggest you go to an institution and study Spanish history and politics before trying to shoot other people). Im not going to look a source for you, i already know it, but im sure somebody else can around here, i just dont have the time to satisfy your every doubts.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
EHT, please, please please read WP:BURDEN. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means you: you were the one to upload this information. I have tried, in vain, to find any written source that states Spain ever occupied Sabah. I realise that this Shepherd map colours it Spanish, but if it really was, it should be pretty simple to find reliable sources that explain in what way Sabah was Spanish, right? So please provide them. If you are right, then great - it stays on the map. What is the problem with that, exactly? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick03:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Hesitant to butt in here, but... this whole thread reminds me of the difficulties I had earlier with the Pacific Northwest being shown red on the map. There's a bunch of terms, like claimed, owned, occupied, as well as possessions, territory, and so on, that as regular English words are not well defined for issues like this. Three much used words, claimed, possessed, and occupied, have quite different connotations, yet none are clearly defined without more information. The UT map linked to above uses the phrase "Colonial Dominions" in its title, with no further clarification about just what that means. A further complication is the notion of whether a region was "part of the Spanish Empire" or not. The word "empire" is, like the others, not well defined by itself. As an impartial observer who knows nothing about Sabah, I can't figure out which of you is right without more information about these various terms. On the other hand, the color red on the map is currently described to mean "possessions (includes certain unoccupied areas)". Leaving aside whether this is quite clear or not, it seems to indicate not only possessions "over which imperial dominion is exercised" (as one dictionary entry defines "empire"), but also areas possessed in a less direct way--perhaps by agreement between European powers as with the Pacific Northwest, perhaps by a claim generally recognized... it is not exactly clear what would or would not count. I've seen the comparison with the British Empire page come up here. The maps on that page are not always obvious in what they are showing. This map, for example, shows a large part of eastern Canada as being part of the British Empire in 1815. Yet I am skeptical that all the indigenous people who lived in that colored area actually recognized the sovereignty of the British monarch or that the British had actual jurisdiction and governance over them. At the very least the British did not occupy that entire region. Or, looking at the map at the top of the British Empire page, here, not only is all of Canada colored, but so is Oregon Country. But while the British did have "legal title" there, in terms of European geopolitical law, and they did have some occupation and extensive operations there, many or most of the indigenous people did not recognize British sovereignty (or US sovereignty for that matter, until forced to by war). I realize that "savages" were not historically considered to matter for such issues, but even if that sad precedent is still followed, it brings up the question of where to draw the line between savages and civilized peoples. If the indigenous people of Sabah did not recognize Spanish authority, were they savage enough to not count, like the indigenous people of Britain's Oregon Country? Anyway, just some reactions to this debate (and many of the others on this page!). It seems like the two of you are not usually in agreement on basic terminology. I know I can't tell which of you is right most of the time, due to a lack of terms and strict definitions. I'd even hazard to say that it is impossible to come up with terms defined strictly enough to decide all cases of what is or isn't part of a historic empire. Pfly (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfly, I've been trying (and I'll keep trying) to see it as you do. But I'm still genuinely convinced that the current wording is appropriate.
I agree with much of what you say, especially about how the natives were treated in these matters.
I really don't know what else to say for now... Sorry. And thank you.
Pat, would you accept this source? It states that the Sulu Sultan had recognized Spanish rule prior to 1878 (page 51), and that the rulers of most of Borneo, the Dutch, recognized Spain as sovereign over the north (page 53). (And thanks for your last message. I'll decide what to do a bit later.) SamEV (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
SamEV, I didn't mean to suggest I wasn't content with the wording. Rather was trying to illustrate how there is necessarily an inherent vagueness in these kind of terms and difficulty in defining exactly what was or wasn't part of a colonial empire. The empires of ancient times seem easier to define--the Roman Empire did not include places that were not actually conquered. Colonial era empires seem to be more complicated in the way their territories were defined. Many sources and maps show their territory based not on conquest or occupation, but more nebulous things like legal claims and so on. I suspect this is part of the reason why most sources agree on the bounds of the Roman Empire, for example, while maps can vary widely in how they show the colonial era Spanish, British, French, etc empires. In any case, I was just trying to help Euro and Pat in their debate. Pfly (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
(r to SamEV) - Hello Sam. This source concurs exactly with what I wrote above that it was merely a claim. ("The Spanish Government claimed that, by previous treaties with Sulu, the suzerainty of Spain over Sulu and its dependencies in Borneo had been recognised and that consequently the grant to Mr. Dent was void. The British Government did not, however, fall in with this view") Therefore, this is why I suggested we change it to pink. It was not as though the Spanish had any form of colonial administration there in Sabah. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick18:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfly makes very interesting comments regarding the word context and especially with the natives recognition of sovereingty. Well it just happens to be when the spanish restored a deposed native to the throne of Borneo, he claimed the country for Spain, this should not go in pink but rather red, or at least red in the north of Borneo (a spanish-creole language is still spoken in Northeastern Borneo that's the best evidence {linguistic} of colonialism/settling) and the middle of Borneo in pink and the southern coast of Borneo in yellow for portuguese. Also if you read around it says there were invasions of Cambodia/Thailand, shouldn't this be represented in the map in any form? Isn't this enough sources Pat F?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
"It was not as though the Spanish had any form of colonial administration there in Sabah"
You are clearly not understanding something, there needs not to be any form of colonial administration for a piece of land to belong to something else and also Im not showing all of Sabah in the SE map, just some of it, also don't get confused colonies are very different from just territory, and lastly this is about the Spanish Empire not Spanish colonies, was northern Morroco not part of the SE just because it was a protectorate or what about those numerous protectorates in the British Empire, did they or did not form of the BE?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah but let me quote from your source: "Another expedition restored to his throne a deposed native ruler of Borneo and formally claimed the country for Spain". That means your source agrees with the fact it was a claim, right? As for the creole language, that is not something I am aware of, but you are engaging in original research by extrapolating from that to saying that the Spanish controlled all of Sabah. (A bit like your Hawaiian flag logic). There are plenty of reasons why languages spread - just because Chinese is spoken in Singapore it does not mean that Singapore was a Chinese colony. But anyway, I applaud you for looking for sources: this is how discussions should proceed at WP. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick22:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes so? this is exactly what we are talking about here (native recognition of sovereingty), you are very contradictory, the spanish didn't claim Borneo (we are pre-1800 here btw), the NATIVES claimed it for Spain.
Also when did I said the spanish controlled all of Sabah?!
Nope, the hawaiian flag thing was to show how british they were and indeed they were a protected state.
And just to remind you, the only reason I look for sources is because you don't know--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
That last sentence is exactly the sort of attitude that may eventually get you permanently blocked from Misplaced Pages. Again, Misplaced Pages policy (ie policy = not an option) is that the burden is on you as the contributor of the material to provide sources, no matter how much you think you might know. You have to show that Sabah was part of the Spanish Empire: it is not for me to prove a negative. And so far, you have not provided any which state that it was more than a claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick22:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Can you discuss something and stop ranting Pat? If I get blocked that is not really something you should remind of, Im aware of it and i have shown you a map, plus the fact that they speak a spanish-creole language in Sabah, that's a lot of source, also yesterday I got blocked for 24 hours and it gave me a chance to work for a new map for this article. Well Im going to go, life is too short to be discuss whether Sabah was part of the SE or not Bye Pat.
Sounds like you have shut the door on providing any references. I therefore have changed Sabah to pink as a claim (per the references we do have) and removed New Guinea. Again, you (EuroHistoryTeacher) stating that there is a Spanish creole language there and therefore it was a part of the Spanish Empire is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Revert your edits to the map please, you had no base to put part of Sabah in Pink and if you are going to do that remember this : the native chieftan claimed '''Borneo''' not northern Sabah for Spain, so include ALL of Borneo in pink not just Northern Sabah. Also New Guinea was claimed for Spain so include it in pink (why in the world did you even remove N. Guinea?!) and plus the Spanish bases there, etc, we know some people don't have a NPOV but i know you (probably) do. Also i already shown you a source and when I said that people in Sabah speak a Spanish-creole language that was just to show you the extent and/or legacy that Spain had/left in Northern Sabah Thanks.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
To butt in again, the sentence, from the source linked above, "Another expedition restored to his throne a deposed native ruler of Borneo and formally claimed the country for Spain", seems to me to say that the Spanish expedition, rather than the native ruler, made the formal claim. Just how it reads to me. Pfly (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
There should be more words in the sentence if it meant the native ruler made the claim. Something like "Another expedition restored to his throne a deposed native ruler...and he formally claimed the country for Spain". As it is, the sentence says, "Another expedition and ." That's all I was trying to say. I personally have no opinion on the whether it is true or not. I'd never even heard of Sabah before this thread. So... no conclusions from me, just parsing the sentence's grammar.Pfly (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
OK i uploaded a new version - included Ifni, extended Portuguese west & east African coasts and included Madagascar, also Borneo went to pink because of Pat claims , and New Guinea went back to its previous coloring (it was claimed and settled in the north {red}), also few Portuguese bases in Asia shaded like in Indonesia, etc.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
You have two countries saying that Spain was sovereign over Sulu (which owned Sabah): Spain and The Netherlands. You have one country saying Spain did not: United Kingdom. These were the principals involved, and the count obviously favors coloring Sabah red. SamEV (talk) 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I'll try to find a clearer source. But do you understand that per the source (), The Netherlands recognized Spain's sovereignty in North Borneo? SamEV (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
No, it does not explicitly say "sovereignty". It says much more ambiguously "pertaining to the Spanish crown", and in other parts of the same source it talks merely of claims. For example, on the previous page it says "I was despatched to Sulu and to different points in North Borneo to publish, on behalf of our Government, a protest against the claim of Spain to any portion of the country." Furthermore, the Spanish claim to Sabah was made entirely on the basis that it was a historical dependency of Sulu. I have already provided several references above on that topic, but here is another one: The History of Malaysia p132The mid-nineteenth century also saw the first hesitant steps towards the eventual incorporation of present-day Sabah into the Malaysian rather than the Philippine political orbit. Some British officials felt that the northern tip of Borneo, where authority was ill-defined and overlordship claimed by both Brunei and the Sulu sultanate, might provide a means by which Spain would extend her territory southwards....Although reiteration of Sulu's independence was the furthest extent to which London would go, this declaration was important because it implicitly denied Spanish authority over Sulu and thus set aside any rights which Spain through Sulu might assert along Borneo's north coast. (The countries resolved their differences in 1885: Sabah went to Britain, Sulu to Spain). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick21:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
"It will be noted that the Dutch do not lay any claim to North Borneo themselves, having always recognized it as pertaining, with the Sulu Archipelago, to the Spanish Crown."
Isn't that clear? The Dutch recognized it as a Spanish possession. The other stuff you quote is the UK argument for adopting a more forward position in the region; why should it be a surprise that in doing that they found it useful to downplay the Spanish history in Sabah? SamEV (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Instead of requoting the same sentence which you have taken out of context, and then interpreting "pertaining to the Spanish Crown" to mean that Spain had more than a claim there (the surrounding paragraphs specifically refer to the fact that it was a claim), can you provide any other sources which explicitly state that it was more than a claim, and how this was the case? I have quoted many on this page, the most recent one being a book on the History of Malaysia which clearly explains the situation without mentioning any Spanish possession of Sabah. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick22:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
In the meantime, here's the entry on Sabah in the Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism p. 92 (the "Sabah" entry says "see British North Borneo", so I'm quoting that entry) - "North Borneo was not controlled by any outside power before the nineteenth century, although sultans from Brunei and Sulu claimed loose suzerainty over the coastal settlements." That is a pretty categorical statement. It then describes how an American Claude Lee Moses purchased a lease (1865), who then sold the rights to American merchants in Hong Kong, with Joseph Torrey as the Maharajah. Torrey then sold the rights to Baron von Overbeck (1875), who then partnered with the Dent brothers to form the British North Borneo Company with a royal charter (1881). No mention of the Spanish in all of that, until we get to their recognition of the company in 1885. It would be a bit strange, would it not, for all that to have happened had Spain anything more than a claim there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick22:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Chalk it up to the Sulu Sultan's weakness. It was through him that Spanish sovereignty was exercised in Sabah. Anyways. SamEV (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The Philippines government would disagree with that statement! The Philippines government maintained that the sultan of Sulu was independent of Spanish authority, that he had only "leased" the territoryThe Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Wow. Now you're going off in a whole 'nother direction, Pat (the Malaysian-Philippines dispute). Nevertheless, here it says exactly the opposite of what your book states: But guess what? That's not even material. The Philippines' position (if your source is right, that is) in the whole Sabah dispute is born out of necessity. It behooves them to attack the 1885 treaty wherein Spain ceded Sabah to the UK in order to prove that Sabah still belongs to Sulu and, since the now mediatized Sulu Sultans have formally pledged allegiance to the Philippines, the latter can base its claim on this. It's their best bet, I guess. SamEV (talk) 22:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, EHT used the Philippine claim as evidence above. But I'm not using the Philippine position as evidence for anything, I was just showing what I found in a source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
In fact, I'm dropping the whole Sabah issue. If EHT is not interested in it, then neither am I. He's the one who broght it up, anyway. SamEV (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
What? I didn't start this discussion, it was Pat Ferrick, I trust most editors in here and I wouldn't ask them to cite everything (this is what this discussion was mostly about : details)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I meant that you're the one who decided to show Sabah in the first place. I'm rather indifferent about it. SamEV (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
No, neither of those are good enough. I'm not sure what exactly you think the antique map depicts? And the second map - where is that from, who was the author, how do we know it was a WP:RS? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Are you kidding me? What do you think its supposed to be ? the moon? C'mon Pat F. don't make it hard for everybody, you know its Northern Borneo (it also says it in the map)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Shepherd's map () is clear enough: It's titled "The Portuguese Colonial Dominions in India and the Malay Archipelago, 1498—1580." Dominions, it says, not "explorations". Pat, you've earlier speculated about Shepherd's source(s). Never mind that; the fact is that Shepherd's a reliable source himself. SamEV (talk) 22:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
SamEV/Trasamundo: I really think that anything outside the bounds of the Viceroyalty of New Spain in North America should be shaded pink as a claim. Some maps that do not show the extent that EHT's map does:
Britannica's 1784 map
Concise Atlas of World History 1600-1800 map p. 119
Hammond Historical World Atlas 1714/1804 maps p. 1
I believe that the principal problem is that the concepts are not clear to delimit the map. Because of it, it is necessary to have clear at first what territories both were subject to a colonial administration or what territorial limits are recognized by other powers. When these limits are clear, there would be necessary to indicate expressly what is considered as claim, since it does not serve any thing, for example when a seafarer who treads on an island, and he accomplishes a claim for Spain that neither country recognizes nor any administration establishes on it, another example would be when is put, per se, as claim the sphere of influence, so being like that, imagine how it would be a map of the United States in which their sphere of influence around the world is included.
In regard to the accuracy of the published maps, in general they are very useful, nevertheless, the specific and particular information that specialized articles contribute, must be taken in account since these articles are reliable sources. We cannot ignore the analysis of the specialized sources by the generality of a map. Trasamundo (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the principal problem is the definition of the legend, and that a "claim" on its own amounts to nothing really. That is why I think we should drop the "claims" bit entirely (you never see this on maps in reliable sources) and go with what is generally shown in maps in reliable sources. In terms of specialized articles, I somewhat agree, but we must be careful not to label something as part of the "Spanish Empire" in the map if historians do not explicitly reach the same conclusion. Otherwise that would be synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
What I meant, Pat, is that you're too map-focused, and I wanted to remind you of Blueboar's words at the NOR noticeboard, wherein he pointed out that we're allowed to create our own maps, from reliable sources.
Well...what Blueboar (correctly) said is that original maps are not original research as long as they do not introduce original thought. Let's take, for example, the military expedition to Cambodia. I don't deny this happened, and I don't deny it could (from a policy point of view) be labelled on a map even if no other map can be found which does so. Where it would become original research though is if it got labelled in a colour suggesting that Cambodia was part of the Empire or claimed by Spain. It's a similar problem with North America in EHT's map. Also, it's especially silly when the inland geography was totally unknown to the Spaniards, so how could they know what they were claiming and where these claims ended? Anyway, as a first step, what do you think about constraining the red areas to the areas shown in the Viceroyalty of New Spain map? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick01:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
At the very least, EHT should be involved in the decision, since he's the one who painted the Oregon Country, which is what this is about, red. SamEV (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
My problem with that is as follows: (1) it's very difficult to have a reasoned debate with EHT. He is right because he just came off a course at university, and everyone else is a dumbass, is usually the way the discussion goes. (2) the status quo ante bellum was to not show this area outside New Spain, and (maybe I missed it) but there was no discussion before EHT added it, so I don't see why now there must be discussion to remove it (whilst we discuss it)? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick02:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to see more maps, in general, showing the effective control of imperial powers rather than (or in addition to) claims. Three thoughts, for whatever they are worth: One, the map at Viceroyalty of New Spain does not show effective control. The northern frontier of Spanish authority was far to the south. It's not clear to me what that map is showing. Perhaps the Louisiana territory plus New Spain as defined by the Adams-Onís Treaty? Second, if it is desirable to map actual control then maps such as the one at the top of the British Empire page ought to be adjusted as well, as it includes everything in what is now the United States to the Mississippi River as part of the British Empire, which was the case as far as British claims went but not in terms of actual control (and yes, other European powers recognized the British claim, but that does not equate to actual control, plus New Spain had similar recognition of claims). Third, the scope of the map here covers large time periods on a global scale, yet is intended to be displayed quite small on a computer screen. I think there may be an an inherent conflict in trying to make the map accurate in detail (both in its delineations and its use of colors and legend words) and simple enough to be clearly understandable--at least not without quite a bit of cartographic compromise and generalization. Mind you, I'm not arguing for or against anyone's ideas here--just putting out some things to think about. Pfly (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
You make some good points, but isn't "effective control" a slippery slope? e.g. how much "effective control" did the Portuguese have over the interior of the Amazon? The safest bet is to stick to the consensus in maps found in WP:RS. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick10:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I agree that effective control, or occupation, etc, would be troublesome to map, especially at a global scale. There are reliable sources about such things, but for this map it would probably not be worth the effort. Still, it makes me wonder--you said we should drop the idea of mapping claims. If not claims or actual control, what is to be mapped? Pfly (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
We should map what the maximum extent of the S.E. that the majority of maps in WP:RS show. I have never seen a map of the Spanish Empire in North America showing the extent that EHT's map shows. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
OK these discussions are very interesting and I DO care about them, is just that I don't have as much free time as you guys do to discuss stuff heavily (at least not for now, from tomorrow I'll be available until wednesday tho).
Pat Ferrick I don't think everyone or anyone in Misplaced Pages is a "dumbass" as you think I do, is just that some people make it very hard because of nationalism and rivalries (I seen this a lot especially between Europeans in wiki, i.e. French vs Brits, Germans vs poles, Spaniards vs Portuguese, etc) and others just want to make it impossible as to scare you off Wiki, I mean you don't have to cite the sky is blue right?
I was exactly making a new map and taking the VR of New Spain issue as a priority, not to mention the East Indies, etc but the current map is really (emphasis on really) innacurate and is POV if you ask me, but I'll be uploading a new map in 5 minutes--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfly what you are saying could be very hard to dissect, for example Russia doesn't really have "effective control" in the east or for that matter Australia in the heart of their land yet those lands are still part of Russia and Australia respectively.
Pat Ferrick just to let you know those VC of New Spain maps are not anachronic, meaning that they are no good for our anachronic map in this article unless a couple more can be found showing different territories (I have a book on that and of U.S. territorial expansion which shows detailed maps). Also this may have nothing to do with it but I don't really trust Britannica, I have seen many "strange" things there ("Horatio Nelson was the greatest navy admiral in world history", etc.), and when I was reading about Britannica encyclopedia I saw they were racist in some parts and I'm somewhat convinced that Britannica Ency. is not really something we want to source everytime. --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
The 11th edition characterises the Ku Klux Klan as protecting the white race and restoring order to the American South after the American Civil War, citing the need to "control the negro", to "prevent any intermingling of the races" and "the frequent occurrence of the crime of rape by negro men upon white women." Similarly, the article on Civilization argues for eugenics, stating that it is irrational to "propagate low orders of intelligence, to feed the ranks of paupers, defectives and criminals … which to-day constitute so threatening an obstacle to racial progress.", see?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes I know that and so? I seen you using 110 year old maps ( lol :P ) and what about the Nelson thing ? don't you think its biased, even for British/Anglo-Saxon {American} standards? i.e. Nelson was a Brit so british/anglo bias is understandable--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Returning to the beginning. I propose something useful, firstly to drop the claims. Subsequently to verify in several maps which are the borders of the empire, where there are differences, we must use sources from articles. If there is someone who thinks that a territory should be included inside these limits (as recognized possession internationally or controlled), he will have to provide sources. As for the claims it is necessary to ask some reasons to include some of them, and other reasons to not include them, before putting some claim. Trasamundo (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should drop the "claims" but what about when the Spaniards performed acts of sovereignty and no other country was there to challenge them? (i.e. in southern Alaska and British Columbia), we should differentiate these claims (which have bases) from the torsedilla treaty claims (which blindly claimed half the sphere).--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfly, I'd say that the New Spain map does show Louisiana, as it should, because it was indeed part of the Viceroyalty. I agree about increasing the map size and improving the delineation of some of these borders.
Pat, again: maps are not the only sources. We are allowed to draw maps that look like no existing map, based on the statements of reliable sources. I agree with you about the difficulty of mapping "effective control", however.
Overall, I fail to understand what is so wrong with depicting claims. They're even identified by that word and are in a different color and thus clearly distinguishable by the reader.
Perhaps I say a silly thing, but what is exactly a claim? what does a claim suppose? what does a claim imply? I do not know if we are talking about the same meaning. Trasamundo (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Those would be areas that Spain declared to be her possessions, but did not actually occupy, and which other nations did not recognize as Spanish. SamEV (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I have one very important question . In the map I made (using Henry Karmen's maps as sources ), should we show that huge part of western Brazil (but not limited to i.e. French/British/Dutch Guyana) which is colored in pink (as a Spanish claim) or should we show it as red (because the Portuguese saw it as Spanish territory, no doubt about that, that's why in the mid-to-late 1700s they even bought it from Spain), from pink to red? What do you guys say?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Ah... I see what the problem was. Since I had my ActiveX turned off, I kept heading straight for the HTML version of the page. If you want to know what I'm talking about, just click on your link and look in the bottom right corner for "Basic HTML mode" and click it.
Per this report, I have semi-protected the article for one month. (In lieu of blocking the IP). If editors reach consensus on the Talk page as to which map should be used, the protection can be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, you have put back Sabah as red, you have not addressed the issues regarding North America, and you have made the Portuguese Empire even bigger than it was. There is no need to make any more maps. I suggest we stick with the current map and address each "issue" in turn. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick21:25, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
"I disagree, you have put back Sabah as red"
I have shown a couple of sources already putting northern Borneo (Its not Sabah!!) as
being Spanish and the rest of Borneo in pink because the native ruler claimed it for Spain, also SamEV has shown you (written) sources.
"you have not addressed the issues regarding North America,"
What are exactly the "issues" (the Britannica's maps?) ? If so I put in pink British Columbia and southern Alaska, so this "issue" is fixed.
"and you have made the Portuguese Empire even bigger than it was."
Yes because I found more sources, i.e. like in Ethiopia, etc.
"There is no need to make any more maps. I suggest we stick with the current map and address each "issue" in turn. "
I have not seen any written sources - from SamEV or anyone else - which state that North Borneo was ever part of the Spanish Empire. I have already raised my issues with North America, I am not going to repeat them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick21:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, having been involved in many a dispute on reliable sources in my time at Misplaced Pages, I can tell you that maps and information found in specialist books always win over websites in a 'disagreement' - even government websites. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick21:51, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The Oregon Country (aka Columbia District) should only be red if that color denotes unoccupied territories as well as actual colonies and provinces. And if it is to be red it should not follow the 49th parallel border between today's Canada and USA. Nor should it be shown as what later became the US-British joint occupied region as shown on the Oregon Country page (the region west of the continental divide and north to 54-40), as this was a delineation created by the post-Spanish US-British treaties. The earlier map here seemed workable in how it showed this region. In any case, the 49th parallel was not used as a boundary in the region until the 1840s, and that between Britain and the US. I have a variety of maps that could be used as sources for drawing this border, but most are of dubious validity. I can post again, when I have more time, with more information if needed. Pfly (talk) 21:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Pat, you certainly have seen sources concerning North Borneo, but I'm not going to repeat them to you.
I have seen your sources, yes, but none of them stated that North Borneo was "part of" the Spanish Empire, did they? So it is rather misrepresenting the situation to claim that I was "shown" written sources, and leave it at that. Yes, I was shown them, but they did not reach the same conclusion that the map was trying to portray. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick22:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
You are very right here Pfly, this is your field no doubt, so I guess you are agreeing to putting in red the territory up to the tip of Southern Alaska (like in the previous map), right?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is most of Brazil now red in this new map? This is - frankly - a totally misleading map. There is no way it is going up on the page, absolutely no way. The current map has its problems but this new one takes them all and makes them ten times worse. As I would like to see less of the current map shaded, not more, I am not wasting my time discussing this new map any further. Suffice it to say, it does not have my support, and should it ever make its way to the main page I shall be slapping a "disputed" tag on it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick22:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
The only thing I can say is : ha ha ha ha . It's funny the way you react Pat lol (i.e."There is no way it is going up on the page, absolutely no way." "And should it ever make its way to the main page I shall be slapping a "disputed" tag on it").
"I would like to see less of the current map shaded, not more"
(replying to the PNW/Oregon Country issue above) If red is to include areas unoccupied and nearly unexplored but with Spanish "legal title vis a vis the other powers", as it was put in the earlier thread, then I probably wouldn't object. Also, I've been researching this topic a bit more and finding that the northern border of New Spain was probably never well-defined west of Rockies until the 1819 treaty with the USA. So how does one map a border that was undefined and could in theory be anywhere between San Francisco and Alaska? There are plenty of maps that could be used as sources, of course. But as I find more and more maps, both old and new ones, I am finding little general agreement among them. The northern border of New Spain on the maps I have found so far are all over the map, so to speak. The only general consensus I can find in historic maps seems to be the 42nd parallel as defined in 1818. Lots of maps show New Spain's northern border there. Of maps that show the border farther north there appears to be little agreement. Finally, I have also been reading about the reliability of historical maps in general and could say something about that topic. In a nutshell, historical maps (that is, maps showing the past), whether old or new, are very often of dubious validity, even those from usually trustworthy publishers--and especially for maps showing colonial era imperial domains. There's a long history of historical maps being misleading, and questionable, with patterns of misinformation and bias still common today. In short I would recommend a skeptical attitude when using historic maps as source material. Question each map's underlying biases and assumptions. Just because many maps show a hard-edged line for the northern border of New Spain west of the Rockies does not mean such a thing existed. Pfly (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
What does "south" mean to you, EHT? I'm saying this: why don't you change the pink color of the Alaskan arc to red?
Pat, why don't you start improving the article prose? Let the rest of us work on the map. When we think it's finished, and sourced, we'll ask you to comment on everything about it, including the sources. How about it? SamEV (talk) 23:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Pfly, re: undefined borders: that's what the pink color is for. It shows what Spain's claims where and their (theoretical) extent.
Ok pero poner todo el sur de Alaska en rojo es un poquito ridiculo (es demasiadamente muy grande, o no? ). Solo lo mas sureño deberia ser mostrado, que piensas?
I believe that this map is simply a nonsense. With the quantity of maps that exist about the Spanish empire, it is the first time that I see one like that, so bloody. This is due to it is considered that the claim as integral part of a country, which is an absolute silly thing, following this logic (considering to be the claim a integral part of the territory of the country) what would happen if we place these maps as real borders in the corresponding articles of wikipedia?: Morocco, Somalia, Macedonia or Albania (each one includes claims).
If I take up again the commentary posted by SamEV about claim: Those would be areas that Spain declared to be her possessions, but did not actually occupy, and which other nations did not recognize as Spanish. I believe that this definition is insufficient, and it suits to distinguish a desire-aspiration, of an effective intention. This wants to say that if there are included in the map the aspirations to achieve a territory, it would be giving a distorted information, let's imagine a map of Éire including Northern Ireland (that it is a claim), a map of Republic of China as this one, when the only administered territory by ROC is Taiwan. Nevertheless, when it is indicated the territory of the claim itself with another shade of color, an additional information is offering, because there is an intention and/or a military dispute to occupy the claim, for example it would be to reflect in a map of India the claim of Kashmir, in a map of Syria to put as claim the Golan Heights, in Serbia to put Kosovo, in Morocco to put Western Sahara, in these cases, the claim would be added with another color and it is clearly informative.
I do not understand why Patagonia is the same color as Peru, because the Spaniards did not set foot in Patagonia. I do not understand why the Amazon appears red, since the Treaty of Tordesillas not set boundaries, but spheres of influence, the borders were established in 1750.
As I have read in this source, Oregon deserves a separate mention, there were Spanish intents to settle there and there was a conflict with UK too, therefore it should put the territory as claim, with another shade of color. In Alaska, if only there were expeditions of exploration, it should not be colored at all.
Once again I find myself agreeing with Trasamundo: excellent points, muchacho. Regarding Brazil, I think we should show on this map the Tordesillas line, and stick to the boundaries that were eventually defined by the T. of Madrid. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick02:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Trasamundo while I do agree with you on the issue of a better definition in the captions and with the accuracy of the maps you showed I do have to tell you that your maps are NOTanachronic, meaning that they are from a single point in history, not very useful (unless many of them put together) when we are trying to show all lands that belonged at any point in history to the Spanish Empire, not lands of the Spanish Empire in 1770 (EXAMPLE of an specific date), do you understand what I'm trying to tell you? I think I made it too confusing Trasamundo, did I ?
As for Brazil, we should show the borders in the proposed map in red as Spanish because those borders were internationally recognized (at least by Portugal, the only power in South America along with Spain) even though they were not settled (although some Christians ventured into the amazons to Christianize indigenous people).
We need an anachronic, not a parachronic map for this article.
"The map will start to be ready to be at the front, when it does not confuse claims with the territories effective and/or recognized internationally"
This is something I would want to adress too. The borders recognized in the Amazon Basin by both Spain and Portugal gave Spain about half of Brazil whose borders were not based on the torsedilla claims .
Yellow to green (yellow is difficult to distinguish from white)
Portugal same colour as its colonies
Removed whatever dot that was in Japan (Portugal had a trading factory in Japan at the pleasure of the Japanese, but no colonies there)
Changed New Guinea to be an outline pink shading for the coast indicating a claim to the whole island but acknowledging their lack of knowledge of the interior.
EHT gets blocked and you take advantage to change his maps. I doubt such non-too-good-faith behavior will redound to your benefit. SamEV (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not responsible for EHT's behaviour. You frequently encourage him and you should know better. And it is not "his" map. It is the map on the Spanish Empire page and therefore it is open to edit by any of us. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick23:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing the Spanish Empire article, not squabbles. If you have a problem with the edits made to the map from the perspective of WP:V and WP:OR or any other article-related matter, then please post them here. If you have a personal problem with my actions, then use my talk page. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick00:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Cool down Sam (and Pat, stop accusing people before you are reported), even though Pat F. requested for me to be blocked in order to "shut" me, I don't think I'm blocked since I'm able to edit, also I will be reverting your edits to the map since you consulted no one (we are a group and there is no I in team) so in the future it will be appreciated if you ask your fellow editors instead of just steamrolling over them (ironically I got blocked two times for defending the majority's opinion, of course the stories were elaborated by Pat F. as to show I broke a rule while he did worst but anyways ).--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Louisiana under New Spain
Regarding the section Twilight of the global empire (1800–1899), and the words: The first major territory Spain was to lose in the nineteenth century was the vast and wild Louisiana Territory, which stretched north to Canada and was ceded by France in 1763. (and similar statements in other articles):
While it is not uncommon for historical maps to show Spanish Louisiana as more or less equivalent with the Louisiana Purchase. Misplaced Pages map's tend to show it this way, and article tend to claim its extent that way too. But this appears to be false and probably the result of the US having insisted that that was the region it had puchased from France and that Spain had ceded to France. Since the US was able to make the claim good, with some adjustments, it might seem to follow that Spain had considered Louisiana to be this same region when it was under Spanish control. But that is poor reasoning, working backwards from a US-centric viewpoint. So what did Spain consider the boundaries of Louisiana to be?
After the US acquired the Louisiana Purchase there arose a dispute with Spain over the extent of the region. The US claimed Louisiana included the entire western watershed of the Missisppi River to the crest of the Rocky Mountains and the lands southwest to the Rio Grande. Spain, on the other hand, insisted that Louisiana "comprised no more than the west bank of the Mississippi and the cities of New Orleans and St. Louis." (this quote from Hämäläinen, Pekka (2008). The Comanche Empire. Yale University Press. p. 156; but similar statements are found in many other sources) Of the historical maps I have at home a fair number show Spanish Louisiana this way--as a slender strip along the west side of the Mississppi south of St. Louis, expanding in width a bit as it merges with Spanish Texas (I can search for such maps online later).
None of this is to say that Spain did not claim the whole of what later become the US Louisiana Territory--it's clear that they did, given their contention with the US over it. My question is whether it is correct to say the Spanish called it Louisiana. From the US viewpoint it was Louisiana and Spain lost it to France, then the US; and it doesn't matter what boundaries Spain said Louisiana had. But from a Spanish viewpoint, it seems that an undefined Lousiana was ceded to France (Third Treaty of San Ildefonso), then sold to the US, and then the US claimed and forced Spain to accept the cession of a region much larger than what had been considered Louisiana under New Spain.
If this is true, and it appears to be based on the text of history books more than historical maps (which do not always agree and are often dubious anyway), then a number of wikipedia articles ought to be reworded. These articles include this one (Spanish Empire), Louisiana (New Spain) (which is totally unsourced), Louisiana (New France), and a number of others. Louisiana Purchase seems to have this info already.
Note I'm not saying any of this ought to be in the map we're always talking about here. But perhaps someday another map of the northern frontier of New Spain in North America could be made. If I ever have the time perhaps I'll make one. Pfly (talk) 17:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
