This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Flag of Ceuta was copied or moved into Iberian Union with this edit on 12 August 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It is a frequent mistake to referr to kings like Sancho III of Navarre or Afonso VII of Castillia, which used the title «Imperator totius Hispaniae», as claiming control over the whole peninsula. During the high-to-low middle ages, «Hispania» was the name given to the area under muslim control, whereas the areas uncontrolled by the caliphat was frequently called «Gallaecia», as stated by Wikipedia itself: /info/en/?search=Gallaecia . Kings that claimed to be «imperator totus Hispaniae» in the X - XIII century were not claiming ownership of the whole peninsula (which they did not control, as it was fragmented in many different kingdoms) but ascendance over the lands annexed by the moors some centuries back. The idea that a unified Iberian peninsula was a long-standing goal has therefore as much grounding as claiming that «a unified Europe has been a longstanding goal». Indeed some people did want it, but many too didn't. Furthermore, many people did want to control most of the Iberian peninsula under their own rule (the Suebi kings of Gallaecia, for example, extended their control over most of the peninsula before the Visigoths stopped their feet), not necessarily the same that eventually stablished a union of crowns in the XVI century. My point in summary: past is complex and extending present ideas into it is dangerous. The introduction of this article should be rephrased to be less biased towards the 'spain-portugal' conflict and talk more about the constant struggle for power of many, many factions and kingdoms in the peninsula (and outside: both the would-be french and british placed their own claims on several crowns). Gatonegro ( talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
References
«Nem uma só vez se achará em nossos escritores a palavra «espanhol» designando exclusivamente ao habitante da Península não português.» (…)«Aragoneses, Castelhanos, Portugueses, todos éramos, por estranhos e próprios, comummente chamados «espanhóis» assim como ainda hoje chamamos «alemão» ao Prussiano, Saxão, Hannoveriano, Austríaco: assim como o Napolitano, o Milanês, o Veneziano e o Piemontês recebem indistintamente o nome de Italianos.»(…)« Mas espanhóis somos, de espanhóis nos devemos apreciar todos os que habitamos à Península Ibérica».
What about a map of all territories of the iberian union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.112.160 ( talk • contribs)
This article is very Portugal-centric. Even the general article History of Spain has more info about the effect of the Union on Spain than this one does. Mdotley 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well... I'll try to do something about it them. See you! The Ogre 11:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The 1580-1640 wwas a personal union, not a political one -- much less the coutries were somehow merged. this is a root problem with this article.-- BBird 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If it was just a personal and not a political union I wonder why the Portuguese had to fight for INDEPENDENCE from SPAIN. It started as a personal union (the same way as the one with England) but later it became a POLITICAL union clearly, as Brazilians know because it was during this time when Portuguese explorers and colonists were allowed to enter further away of the limits established in the Tordesillas Treaty, including half of what now is BRAZIL.-- 88.18.150.26 ( talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) In Ceuta and Fernando Poo the opposite happened.
It is the same as in the NETHERLANDS...If it was just a personal union why did they have to fight for INDEPENDENCE from SPAIN for 80 years and they remember the Duke of ALBA so well...-- 88.18.150.26 ( talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just look in the Luis Camoes article in Wikipedia (english) when they say "Spanish troops were approaching Lisbon...". So it was clearly a political Union, an annexation in fact.--
88.18.150.26 (
talk)
02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal union de iure, political union - de facto(
83.5.210.103 (
talk))
I think that most of the "Origins of the House of Braganza" section would be better placed in the House of Braganza article than here. Does anyone object to me moving it? Ground Zero | t 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a new map and i already put it up , the previous one showed too many current borders in south america .
sources for new map : [1]-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:V, I am going to add little by little, depending on my available time, the sources that justify the depiction with dots of the territories of the kingdom of Portugal during the Iberian Union, as the map of the Spanish empire shows. Trasamundo ( talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
General view:
Overview
North east of Africa:
South east and south west of Africa:
Persian Gulf:
India:
Southeast Asia:
Trasamundo ( talk) 17:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Portugal had yet a Fort in Banda, even until this time?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.50.205 ( talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The union could have been achieved earlier had Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, become king. What exactly needs to be sourced? No scholar disputes the fact that Miguel was simultaneously heir apparent to the Portuguese throne and heir presumptive to the thrones of Aragon and Castile. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is very Portugal-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venerock ( talk • contribs)
For the Portuguese "Hispania" and "Hespanha" was a geographic name for Iberian Peninsula until 1700s(even XIX century sometimes for some people, as the name "Iberia" of today), as its peninsular "homeland", but not so "homeland" as was Portugal already in Medieval Ages and Renaissence for Portuguese - Portugal already was their "nation", "homeland" and "motherland" (not only "Kingdom") - see Fernão Lopes before, Luis Vaz de Camões, António Ferreira, Gil Vicente, Garcia de Resende and many other great names.
But not for the Spanish, at least so late - the name became a "Country" or "motherland" without Portugal(as we know Spain today) and more early than 1716´s "Nueva Planta", altough "Nueva Planta" marks the unified Spain of today as the people know - altough the long spanish process has started in 1469-1512 as a united crown of crowns. From some Seals and Portraits of Philip II(and I) on Habsburg´s Iberian Union times - 1580-1640:
"PHILIPPUS II HISPANIAR ET LUSITANIAE REX DIVI CAROLI V...ISABELLA EMANUELIS LUSITANIAE REGIS F. CAROLI V IMP. MAX. UXOR"
"PHILIPPUS DEI GRATIA REX HISPANIARVM VTRIVSQVE SICILIAE HIERVSALEM ET PORTVGALLIAE" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The case of Portugal+Spain has been included in both the Dynastic Union and the Personal Union articles. I am not going to change this, as it would appear that the doming view favours Dynastic Union, while in my opinion it is more a Personal Union. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Indias (Americas and Phillipines) was incorpored to the crown of Castile. Council of Indias was only a big part of council of Castile. -- Santos30 ( talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The aim of the map is to depict the domains of Philip II, in addition to that I added information about territorial councils to show how the Catholic monarch managed the issues of his domains through the polisynodial system of Councils. At no time, the map depicts the kingdoms, states and lordships of the Catholic monarchy, so the legend neither says anything nor should say anything about the realms (kingdoms...). Similarly if it is not shown that the Council of Aragon only engaged a part of the Crown of of Aragon, and the Council of Italy the other part of the Crown of Aragon along with imperial fiefs in Italy, then it mustn't show that the councils of Castile and that of the Indies engaged with territories of the crown of Castile. If the aim of the map is not to depict kingdoms, then it is not intention of the legend of the map show something that does not appear on the map. The map is not wrong because it depicts what it tries to show, and it doesn't show what you would like to put to justify your POV of placing indiscriminately that the Indies belonged to the crown of Castile wherever and however, because that's not the purpose of the map.
And in 1524 the Council of Indies split from that of Castile. [102] La creación del Consejo de Indias (1524) desglosado ya definitivamente del de Castilla [...] La primera media fue la creación del Real y Supremo Consejo de Indias, inspirado en los de Castilla (1480) y Aragón (1494). Por ella se desgajan las indias de la matriz castellana.. Trasamundo ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberian Republic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Iberian Union" is a modern name, not one used at the time, very much like the Byzantine empire. But, while the Byzantine empire article has this clarification, I've found none about this in the so-called "Iberian Union" article.
I think the best name would be "personal union of Spain and Portugal". Or even Spanish Habsburg empire, but considering this article is too Portuguese-centric, I guess it would be renamed. "Iberian Union" isn't someting that is taught in the History of Spain lessons in Spain, so I guess it's a Portuguese-centric way to not mention Spain. Back then, modern nation-states didn't exist yet, so people would consider themselves subjects of kings Philip II, III and IV of the House of Austria (Spanish name for the Habsburgs), with different cultures/backgrounds (Spanish, Portuguese), but not Spanish citizens of a Spanish state or Portuguese citizens or a Portuguese state living under one ruler. The ruler was Spanish, and lived in Spain, which was a more powerful country at the time, so it's naturally assumed to be the main partner in the union. This is not to make Portuguese people look unimportant or disrespect their legacy. Look at England and Ireland: they had been under a personal union since King John, even if the kingdoms hadn't been merged. But nobody talks about a "British Isles Union" to talk about that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.194.151 ( talk) 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The correct name would be "Portugal within the Spanish monarchy". First of all there was no such thing as a Spanish state but a composite monarchy or empire where different kingdoms and states retained their laws, coinage, etc: the kingdom of Castile, the kingdom of Aragon, the kingdom of Valencia, the principality of Catalonia, the county of Flanders, the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Milan. Philip II was not a "Spanish ruler who lived in Spain" as opposed to Portugal. You can say his culture was Castilian and he ruled from Castile, the most important of his empire's states. Portugal was part of what then was called "Spain", which was not a unified entity vis a vis Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.63.189.182 ( talk) 14:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This should be taken into consideration. The name "Iberian Union" is totally anachronistic and it feels an attempt to not saying that Portugal was part of a personal union with a more dominant entity, the Spanish kingdoms that had been under a personal union for decades. It's true thay had separate laws, but the concept of Spain already existed as a geographical and cultural reality. Spain comes from Hispania, a name for the whole Peninsula. Portugal could be seen as part of Spain, but the other kingdoms had been together for a long time. "Personal union of Spain and Portugal" is the best alternative I've seen suggested in this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.37.122 ( talk) 10:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Originally a personal union, the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain remained independent states, sharing a single monarch. Although, over time it became the same political unit, since the Portuguese had to make war against the Spanish to achieve the long-awaited independence from Portugal, as it happened in 1640. 87.223.34.73 ( talk) 09:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The Treaty of Lisbon makes the division official in 1668 de iure and the facto as territories (Ceuta etc) are exchanged between the two parties involved and this is accepted by both and also the intermediary as the British crown. This means that the independence wasn't achieved until 1668. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Flag of Ceuta was copied or moved into Iberian Union with this edit on 12 August 2022. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
It is a frequent mistake to referr to kings like Sancho III of Navarre or Afonso VII of Castillia, which used the title «Imperator totius Hispaniae», as claiming control over the whole peninsula. During the high-to-low middle ages, «Hispania» was the name given to the area under muslim control, whereas the areas uncontrolled by the caliphat was frequently called «Gallaecia», as stated by Wikipedia itself: /info/en/?search=Gallaecia . Kings that claimed to be «imperator totus Hispaniae» in the X - XIII century were not claiming ownership of the whole peninsula (which they did not control, as it was fragmented in many different kingdoms) but ascendance over the lands annexed by the moors some centuries back. The idea that a unified Iberian peninsula was a long-standing goal has therefore as much grounding as claiming that «a unified Europe has been a longstanding goal». Indeed some people did want it, but many too didn't. Furthermore, many people did want to control most of the Iberian peninsula under their own rule (the Suebi kings of Gallaecia, for example, extended their control over most of the peninsula before the Visigoths stopped their feet), not necessarily the same that eventually stablished a union of crowns in the XVI century. My point in summary: past is complex and extending present ideas into it is dangerous. The introduction of this article should be rephrased to be less biased towards the 'spain-portugal' conflict and talk more about the constant struggle for power of many, many factions and kingdoms in the peninsula (and outside: both the would-be french and british placed their own claims on several crowns). Gatonegro ( talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
References
«Nem uma só vez se achará em nossos escritores a palavra «espanhol» designando exclusivamente ao habitante da Península não português.» (…)«Aragoneses, Castelhanos, Portugueses, todos éramos, por estranhos e próprios, comummente chamados «espanhóis» assim como ainda hoje chamamos «alemão» ao Prussiano, Saxão, Hannoveriano, Austríaco: assim como o Napolitano, o Milanês, o Veneziano e o Piemontês recebem indistintamente o nome de Italianos.»(…)« Mas espanhóis somos, de espanhóis nos devemos apreciar todos os que habitamos à Península Ibérica».
What about a map of all territories of the iberian union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.112.160 ( talk • contribs)
This article is very Portugal-centric. Even the general article History of Spain has more info about the effect of the Union on Spain than this one does. Mdotley 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well... I'll try to do something about it them. See you! The Ogre 11:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The 1580-1640 wwas a personal union, not a political one -- much less the coutries were somehow merged. this is a root problem with this article.-- BBird 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
If it was just a personal and not a political union I wonder why the Portuguese had to fight for INDEPENDENCE from SPAIN. It started as a personal union (the same way as the one with England) but later it became a POLITICAL union clearly, as Brazilians know because it was during this time when Portuguese explorers and colonists were allowed to enter further away of the limits established in the Tordesillas Treaty, including half of what now is BRAZIL.-- 88.18.150.26 ( talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) In Ceuta and Fernando Poo the opposite happened.
It is the same as in the NETHERLANDS...If it was just a personal union why did they have to fight for INDEPENDENCE from SPAIN for 80 years and they remember the Duke of ALBA so well...-- 88.18.150.26 ( talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Just look in the Luis Camoes article in Wikipedia (english) when they say "Spanish troops were approaching Lisbon...". So it was clearly a political Union, an annexation in fact.--
88.18.150.26 (
talk)
02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal union de iure, political union - de facto(
83.5.210.103 (
talk))
I think that most of the "Origins of the House of Braganza" section would be better placed in the House of Braganza article than here. Does anyone object to me moving it? Ground Zero | t 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I made a new map and i already put it up , the previous one showed too many current borders in south america .
sources for new map : [1]-- EuroHistoryTeacher ( talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:V, I am going to add little by little, depending on my available time, the sources that justify the depiction with dots of the territories of the kingdom of Portugal during the Iberian Union, as the map of the Spanish empire shows. Trasamundo ( talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
General view:
Overview
North east of Africa:
South east and south west of Africa:
Persian Gulf:
India:
Southeast Asia:
Trasamundo ( talk) 17:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Portugal had yet a Fort in Banda, even until this time?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.50.205 ( talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
The union could have been achieved earlier had Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, become king. What exactly needs to be sourced? No scholar disputes the fact that Miguel was simultaneously heir apparent to the Portuguese throne and heir presumptive to the thrones of Aragon and Castile. Surtsicna ( talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is very Portugal-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venerock ( talk • contribs)
For the Portuguese "Hispania" and "Hespanha" was a geographic name for Iberian Peninsula until 1700s(even XIX century sometimes for some people, as the name "Iberia" of today), as its peninsular "homeland", but not so "homeland" as was Portugal already in Medieval Ages and Renaissence for Portuguese - Portugal already was their "nation", "homeland" and "motherland" (not only "Kingdom") - see Fernão Lopes before, Luis Vaz de Camões, António Ferreira, Gil Vicente, Garcia de Resende and many other great names.
But not for the Spanish, at least so late - the name became a "Country" or "motherland" without Portugal(as we know Spain today) and more early than 1716´s "Nueva Planta", altough "Nueva Planta" marks the unified Spain of today as the people know - altough the long spanish process has started in 1469-1512 as a united crown of crowns. From some Seals and Portraits of Philip II(and I) on Habsburg´s Iberian Union times - 1580-1640:
"PHILIPPUS II HISPANIAR ET LUSITANIAE REX DIVI CAROLI V...ISABELLA EMANUELIS LUSITANIAE REGIS F. CAROLI V IMP. MAX. UXOR"
"PHILIPPUS DEI GRATIA REX HISPANIARVM VTRIVSQVE SICILIAE HIERVSALEM ET PORTVGALLIAE" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 ( talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
The case of Portugal+Spain has been included in both the Dynastic Union and the Personal Union articles. I am not going to change this, as it would appear that the doming view favours Dynastic Union, while in my opinion it is more a Personal Union. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia ( talk) 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Indias (Americas and Phillipines) was incorpored to the crown of Castile. Council of Indias was only a big part of council of Castile. -- Santos30 ( talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
The aim of the map is to depict the domains of Philip II, in addition to that I added information about territorial councils to show how the Catholic monarch managed the issues of his domains through the polisynodial system of Councils. At no time, the map depicts the kingdoms, states and lordships of the Catholic monarchy, so the legend neither says anything nor should say anything about the realms (kingdoms...). Similarly if it is not shown that the Council of Aragon only engaged a part of the Crown of of Aragon, and the Council of Italy the other part of the Crown of Aragon along with imperial fiefs in Italy, then it mustn't show that the councils of Castile and that of the Indies engaged with territories of the crown of Castile. If the aim of the map is not to depict kingdoms, then it is not intention of the legend of the map show something that does not appear on the map. The map is not wrong because it depicts what it tries to show, and it doesn't show what you would like to put to justify your POV of placing indiscriminately that the Indies belonged to the crown of Castile wherever and however, because that's not the purpose of the map.
And in 1524 the Council of Indies split from that of Castile. [102] La creación del Consejo de Indias (1524) desglosado ya definitivamente del de Castilla [...] La primera media fue la creación del Real y Supremo Consejo de Indias, inspirado en los de Castilla (1480) y Aragón (1494). Por ella se desgajan las indias de la matriz castellana.. Trasamundo ( talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberian Republic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
"Iberian Union" is a modern name, not one used at the time, very much like the Byzantine empire. But, while the Byzantine empire article has this clarification, I've found none about this in the so-called "Iberian Union" article.
I think the best name would be "personal union of Spain and Portugal". Or even Spanish Habsburg empire, but considering this article is too Portuguese-centric, I guess it would be renamed. "Iberian Union" isn't someting that is taught in the History of Spain lessons in Spain, so I guess it's a Portuguese-centric way to not mention Spain. Back then, modern nation-states didn't exist yet, so people would consider themselves subjects of kings Philip II, III and IV of the House of Austria (Spanish name for the Habsburgs), with different cultures/backgrounds (Spanish, Portuguese), but not Spanish citizens of a Spanish state or Portuguese citizens or a Portuguese state living under one ruler. The ruler was Spanish, and lived in Spain, which was a more powerful country at the time, so it's naturally assumed to be the main partner in the union. This is not to make Portuguese people look unimportant or disrespect their legacy. Look at England and Ireland: they had been under a personal union since King John, even if the kingdoms hadn't been merged. But nobody talks about a "British Isles Union" to talk about that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.194.151 ( talk) 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
The correct name would be "Portugal within the Spanish monarchy". First of all there was no such thing as a Spanish state but a composite monarchy or empire where different kingdoms and states retained their laws, coinage, etc: the kingdom of Castile, the kingdom of Aragon, the kingdom of Valencia, the principality of Catalonia, the county of Flanders, the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Milan. Philip II was not a "Spanish ruler who lived in Spain" as opposed to Portugal. You can say his culture was Castilian and he ruled from Castile, the most important of his empire's states. Portugal was part of what then was called "Spain", which was not a unified entity vis a vis Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.63.189.182 ( talk) 14:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
This should be taken into consideration. The name "Iberian Union" is totally anachronistic and it feels an attempt to not saying that Portugal was part of a personal union with a more dominant entity, the Spanish kingdoms that had been under a personal union for decades. It's true thay had separate laws, but the concept of Spain already existed as a geographical and cultural reality. Spain comes from Hispania, a name for the whole Peninsula. Portugal could be seen as part of Spain, but the other kingdoms had been together for a long time. "Personal union of Spain and Portugal" is the best alternative I've seen suggested in this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.37.122 ( talk) 10:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Originally a personal union, the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain remained independent states, sharing a single monarch. Although, over time it became the same political unit, since the Portuguese had to make war against the Spanish to achieve the long-awaited independence from Portugal, as it happened in 1640. 87.223.34.73 ( talk) 09:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
The Treaty of Lisbon makes the division official in 1668 de iure and the facto as territories (Ceuta etc) are exchanged between the two parties involved and this is accepted by both and also the intermediary as the British crown. This means that the independence wasn't achieved until 1668. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa ( talk) 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)