![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"The Empire on which the sun never sets: The Golden Age" is much too long and terribly, terrible clumsy for a subtitle. The original "Sun Never Sets" was short and attention catching. I've left the ":Golden Age" even though this expression is so common in so many different history articles as to be commonplace and boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.33.141 ( talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Pay attention to the history of the discussion page. User the Red Hat is erasing critical information introduced by other users oin an act of vandalism. I will not engage in an edit war. Just pay attention at what he does. He has erased some comments and a map introduced as a comparison for the double standards used here. Personally I am also starting to think that he and Lord Corwallis are trolls of the same person. anyway his conduct is what should be judged. Look at what he is deleting from the discussion page-- JovetheGod ( talk) 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry what?. You Lord Cornwallis make against me an ad-hominem attack. Im put the map make for Red Hat to prove the affirmation of Double standards.-- Resvoluci ( talk) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Here the map of British Empire by Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
:
-- Resvoluci ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
For god' s sake stop using the sockpuppetry issue to avoid the main issue. I am not that Cossialcastels. ?Try and proof it if you can, Red Hat. There are many people here you disagree with you, that is all. I myself suspect that the Red Hat and Lord Corwallis or whatever is the same person, but I may be wrong, so whatever. The main issue is the clear double standard. We all know that in this and in many other subjects cherry picking information we can write very different articles, in this case maps, using as many sources as we want. So, the main issue is the standard. I haved spoken of simple comparisons like Patagonia in the Spanish map, Amazonia in the Portuguese map,Antarctica or the North Pole, in the British map. Just a few examples that clearly show the different standards used. I hope to come to an agreement that is reasonable and honest. I have a busy life and I am leaving you for some time. In case of need, you know that I vote for the map that I have reintroduced several times and that was there before, also after a long discussion. Good luck and I hope that honest views will prevail. -- 81.33.232.182 ( talk) 11:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 18, 2009 I uploaded two maps, one of the British empire claims with names to all the places it claimed throughout its history, and the other was of the Spanish Empire. They are both on wikimedia commons and they are called:
File:British Empire (including names).png File:Spanish Empire (including names).png
I was successful in adding the British map to the British Empire page, replacing the old one. I feel that these two maps are more accurate and explanatory. I was not able to add the Spanish Empire map to its page because of protection. The map that is currently there is unattractive, does not show the lines of the countries that have been formed because of the empires in our present day of the borders of the territories of Spanish claims. My map on the Spanish Empire lets you see our present day borders shadowed in the back ground and brown lines around the Spanish Territories that existed at certain times in its history. Please try to add this map to the page and replace the map that is there with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind Mr. Red Hat that this page does not belong him, or to any one editor or group of editors. There is no consensus for this map. Since it was introduced a few weeks ago, there have been constant messages of criticism, be it by established users or by editors who have not registered, which let me remind you, is also legitimate. The existing map is confusing, messy, and reveals an anti-Spanish bias which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please revert it to the previous one or we will need to go to dispute resolution. JCRB ( talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone change the map to File:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg please? They are the same, but this one is being deleted and would improve the Commons better if it was, (to reduce redundancy and clutter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 ( talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, i find this garbled:
For instance, traditionally, territories such as the Low Countries or Spanish Netherlands were included as they were part of the possessions of the King of Spain, governed by Spanish officials, and defended by Spanish troops. However, authors like the British historian Henry Kamen contend that these territories were never integrated into a Spanish state and instead formed part of the wider Habsburg possessions.
What?
Kamen Argues that the nothern provinces were never integrated to the Spanish State (as we can understand ruled de facto from Madrid) due the cruelty of Alba in the beginning of the revolt. That consecuently caused the Eighty Years' War. (Despite the first stanzza of the dutch national anthem dating from 1568), But the catholic provinces of the south ( Spanish Netherlands article ) were definitely integrated to the Spanish State, not only to the Spanish Habsburgs, but to the Spanish Bourbons under Philip V of Spain in 1701 ... Veracruzian ( talk) 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So wha?. don't you get it?. This article is dominated by a group whose sole aim is to belittle anything related to the Spanish empire, just read the discussion and to what the pay attention and what they ignore. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.8 ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we ask for the page to be protected again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to begin reworking this article so that it can get towards GA, and finally FA status, as I did with British Empire. However, this will involve major changes to the article, because it's extremely poorly written, it goes into far too much detail on certain topics, and it strays very far from the manual of style. One major issue I have with the article is the huge discussion of affairs in Europe. This should be cut down to a couple of paragraphs and much more space devoted to events in the overseas colonies. Before I embark on this and get reverted, however, I just want to make sure I have people's support here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That map is a masterpiece! trasamundo señor you are the new Velasquez! Beautiful map with seven shades that please the eye and I also love how small the territories of empire are shown! good job trasamundo, keep it up! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.118.23 ( talk) 05:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
No mention whatsoever of genocide, plunder and squander of the greatest silver and gold mines in the world or the abusive treatment of Indians in ocupied lands. Bravo!. Please aply it to other pages, such as Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide or the current Sudanese genocide. (btw, LOVE that legacy section, it's cutesy how naive it is)-- 99.192.61.125 ( talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you could start with the US too. I wonder why most people of Amerindian ancestry actually live or come from Hispanic America? Were they not supposed to have disappeared under the evil Spanish. How come they indeed disappeared in the US or Canada? How come Amerindians and Mestizos make up 90% of the population of Mexico and they are almost extinguished in the US, if Hispanics do not count? History is very funny, right?. How much cheap anti Spanich propaganda! Move on, it is becoming outdated! I would like to hear of an empire that did not impose itself with violence, especially half a millenium ago. If you know of one, please tell me. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.193 ( talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the map is extremely bad. I agree with previous complaints about it. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.236.188 ( talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please change the map, I think the map in the spanish page is way better than this :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroesuper ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly making this edit which apart from being extremely poor English, is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree (yes, it was technically Castile, but English language historians commonly use the term "Spain" after 1492). Does anyone feel that the edits should stand? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.216.124 ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-17T18:09:34
This article on Spanish Empire should include a cross-link to the 1573 Laws of the Indies (wiki entry), preferably at the end of section 3.3 discussing the apogee of the Spanish empire under Philip II. In particular, this should mention the Laws of the Indies codification of new city planning, the first attempt to abstract principles of urban design (without a given site) since Vitruvius. This aspect of the laws is not evident from the indigenous related laws cited in the article (Burgos and the New Laws).-- My4lane ( talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (AEST)
As explained in previous messages, the current multi-color map is inappropriate. It seems to describe the Spanish Empire as many individual states or kingdoms, separate from each other. This is obviously wrong. The previous version of the map should be inserted, with one color for all territories once belonging to Spain or her monarchy. This is how it's done in all other "Empire" maps, for example the British Empire, the French Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Dutch Empire, the German Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Italian Empire and others. There is no reason why the Spanish Empire should be different. JCRB ( talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
---
Well, then be careful with The Red Hat. He has already shown to be one little Wiki-dictator, famous anti Spanish user and even more famous British propagandist. By the way. Do you see the British Empire map? Including part of Antartica, etc, and the Spanish one missing Patagonia etc. What a shame, this is outrageous and shameful. What a pity for this Encyclo. Just cheap Brit propaganda. Joshe.
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 ( talk) 09:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The map is no good. Just make comparisons with the maps of other Empires. It is no minor issue. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.202.55 ( talk) 13:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello propagandist. If you want to insist on anyone who is not in agreement with you Cosiadestels, OK. Your attitude speaks for itself. Anyway, there is my two cents. I have a life and I am not embarked on any propaganda crusade. Goodbye. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.156.224 ( talk) 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Guess what is going to happen? With that argument this map is going to stay like this and all the others like that. Is that not a double standard?. Sure it is not. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.156.224 ( talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the map provides redundant info. The main map should be used to show the extent of the empire, not when every single colony became independent. That dates can be found in the article and in other multiple articles, it only makes it imposible to understand, it would be easier to understand with 3 colours at much (to distinguish spain, portugal, and claimed but not controlled areas). Like in this one:
Enriquegoni (
talk)
00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I like that map too. Much better, complete and realistic that the one in the article now. Toni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.201.213 ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a little note. This is what the introdutcion states. "Later expeditions established an empire that stretched from present-day Canada in North America to Tierra del Fuego in South America". As you know, Tierra del Fuego is the southernmost tip in south american mainland. But in the map, this zone is vanished from the empire. Patagonia was ofically part of the empire. When Argentina and Chile became independent, they automatically owned those territories, and respected the borders oficially stablished during the empire. It was not claimed by France or Britain. There were several spnish setlements there (not even one british or french setlement). It should be light red, because indigenous tribes there were never loyal to the empire. But if you completely vanish Tierra del Fuego from the empire, I should begin vanishing territories from British empire like Iraq (never fully controlled), Antartica. The portuguese map by this standard will have to suffer serious modification, vanishing most of the coloured zones. The French map also, vanishing indian territories. The dutch also, as lots of the islands claimed were not even discovered until later
Enriquegoni ( talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I was trying to convert the existing map to a 2 coloured one but I dont have the appropiate photoshop. Maybe you can show me where to download one, I would thank that vry much. Actually there are two main problems with the map, the first and most important is that it shows too many colours making very difficult to distinguish spain, portugal or whatever, the second is that the british wikipedia, sorry, the english wikipedia, can be said to follow double standards in this case, because every single empire I've seen apart from spanish shows "claimed but not controlled territory". In most cases, it doesnt even use another colour to distinguish it from fully controlled areas. Note that the British empire talk page has had multiple discussions on this subject and has never removed a part of the map, not even considered using another colour to make clear it was only a claim, not a real involvement in the area, like was the case of Iraq, north pole, antartica, australian dessert, african desert. All of this areas were only de jure parts of the empire. The same as Patagonia in this case. The funniest part of the subject is that The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and company in the british empire talk page are not talking about "removing" or making this things clear, they are talking about ¡¿including more?! parts into the british map. Sorry, but I can only laugh against so much british bias. Enriquegoni ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I attend without surprise at the umpteenth repetition of a map with colors is confusing or said otherwise, only a color-blind can understand maps. If someone wants to see the real extension of the Spanish empire then it is so simple as seeing all the colored areas. It's a good job that there are more people who still want to have more information than a bi/monochrome mute map.
I ignore what encyclopaedic criterion is to establish how the others make it badly then I will do it also. If the criterion is as it appears so in an article, then here also, however, that is contrary to wikipedia policy as we read in WP:CIRCULAR. Well I can affirm that to make this map I had to trace sources, even about international law, without drawing on either on beliefs or suppositions and without worrying which are the borders of other maps, especially when the technical means that could arrange Spain or Portugal between the 16th-18th centuries to control and to administer territories were worst than those France or UK could arrange between the 19th-20th centuries.
How my mind is to offer a well-referenced map, I have received suggestions about Minorca and Sienna. As Minorca was lost during the period of the treaty of Utrecht, I should reflect it with its pink color, and since nowadays it is a Spanish territory, I should put the island with a double color. I know that someone will say to me that it is confusing, but imagine that someone who does not know anything (or know little) about history of Spain, when he sees a double color, he will estimate with a glimpse that in Minorca occurred something in its history, whereas a monocolor map does not offer any additional information at all.
Meanwhile, Siena turns out to be a bit more confused for me, and because of it, I open this post, if it should be necessary to include it. The references indicate that due to the revolt of Siena:
I believe that the references show that during a brief period, Philip II as king of Spain, not as prince, arbitrated and directed issues of Siena as part of his Italian policy, whereas the sources do not mention anything about the government of Ferdinand of Habsburg, then King of the Romans, in Siena until 1560 (then emperor). Therefore Siena should be included in the map.
Trasamundo (
talk)
12:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Not here: Viceroy; Not there: Viceroy_(disambiguation); Not even there: [16] ---- IANVS ( talk) 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the coast of the Argentnian Patagonia should be included on the map, it had numerous colonies and forts, the control of the important whale industry. The patagonia zone had 2 comisarios superintendentes (something like governors). There are numerous sources that state this:
"Esta Bahía de San Julián, sus terrenos y costas, el Puerto Deseado, Santa Elena, San Gregorio, San Jorge y Santa Cruz, con todas sus dependencias de esta costa Patagónica pertenecen al dominio del Rey de España, de que ha tenido y tiene la posesión, y como tal, de su Real Orden se visitan anualmente para que ninguna Nación los pueda ocupar" "En la costa setentrional del Estrecho de Magallanes está el Morro de Santa Águeda o Cabo Forward, desde el cual corre hacia Norte la Cordillera de los Andes y divide a la tierra patagónica en oriental y occidental. La oriental siempre se consideró del Virreinato de Buenos Aires hasta el Estrecho de Magallanes... La Patagonia occidental pertenecía al Reino de Chile hasta el mismo Estrecho de Magallanes, no obstante que las conversiones de indios no pasaban de lo más Sud del Archipiélago de Chiloé con algunas entradas que hacían los misioneros en el Archipiélago de Guaytecas o de Chonos" There is an article on spanish wiki called "Establecimientos Patagonicos" that lists a lot more colonies than the ones shown in this article, I dont know why for example "Pueblo de Nueva Murcia", "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" (actual city of Viedma, capital city of Rio Negro) and more are not included in the map. There were also forts, in Rio Negro there were 3 forts. Then you take a look at other possesion maps and see Antartica, North Pole, Sahara desert as possesions, and it is quite disturbing. Fireinthegol ( talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a reason why amerindian countries or boundaries are not shown on the XVIII century maps. Not because there is an europeans bias but because amerindian was a culture that made no claims on sovereignty or formed countries, they lived in tribes, they didnt collect taxes, they didnt have the concepts of country or private property. Even today, there are tribes in South America that are not really controlled or pay taxes or have an ID card. If you take a look at colonial maps, you will see that the Sahara desert belonged to France, the Iraq and Australian deserts to Britain. Not because they had secure land routes (they didn't), but because other European nations wouldn't dare to enter without an army. The objective of Spain in the Patagonia was not to subjugate the natives. The objective were the maritime resources, the rivers and stopping Britain and France to stablish there. They were successful in all of these. When the United States purchased Louisiana from France, they stil had to deal with natives, because France legally owned that territory over Europeans, but didnt control it over the natives. Australia didn't have control over the aboriginal people until XX century, so it's difficult to accept that aboriginals recognized British rule. Trasamundo, answer to this. Baleato's description in 1803 says that Eastern Patagonia had no further stablishments than Río Negro and Bahía de San José, but in the time, Puerto Deseado existed. Why didnt he said "de no tener mas establecimientos que hasta Puerto Deseado" ? In Río Negro, there were 2 forts and an stablishment: En 1782 Francisco de Biedma fundó un fuerte en cada orilla del río Negro para resguardar a Carmen de Patagones, el Fuerte San Javier al sur y el Fuerte Invencible al norte. (In 1782, Francisco de Biema founded 2 forts in Río Negro, one at each side of the river to secure Carmen de Patagones). It is not only the maritime routes that were used, the control over the rivers was also important. Fuera de que se podría descubrir un camino más corto para navegar este río, con barcos hasta Valdivia. The enclaves that you say were controlled the strategic positions, and always had 1 or 2 forts to protect them. Apart from this, in the atcual location of Mar del Plata there was other establishment, "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán", En 1746 se estableció una reducción jesuítica llamada "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán" adyacente a la Laguna Las Cabrillas que llegó a albergar cerca de quinientas personas (In 1746 it was stablished a colony which had 500 inhabitants). This meant a colony every 200km along the coast up to Peninsula of Valdés. Maybe that is why Baleato's description used "up to" San José, because an stablishment every 200km is rather continuous. Fireinthegol ( talk) 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree that there are a few zones that are fully coloured but where the natives were not subjugated, like in parts of actual United states where it is known that Amerindians were not subjugated until the XIX century (this standard would affect French and British empire maps mostly). But if you could ask a XVIII century Britishman who owned the Patagonian zone, he would very likely answer that Spain, because it was the undisputed international power there, exploiting resources, trading with natives and controlling the zone. I think there is a difference between not having pressence at all (not coloured), being undisputed ruler (half coloured) and being undistputed ruler and settler (full coloured). That difference should be marked. Fireinthegol ( talk) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I've read some of the discussions (all of them is impossible). Like a lot of them, I have the opinion that there is a double standard regarding British and Spanish issues (maybe because majority of editors are British or anglosaxon). I know I am not the first one that finds this map controversial, and probably I won't be the last one, so I think this should be resolved in a voting here, or a voting to include a standard over general imperial maps. Wether if the standard is ruling over western nations and using the natural resources (like in every map other than Spanish), or ruling over western nations, using the natural resources and ruling over natives so they worked for the empire it makes a big difference. Fireinthegol ( talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo don't try to judge me in your comments. Your map has generated an incredible amount of discussions, it is highly controversial because the primary sources clearly state that Spain had control over the coast up to Río Negro and San José and you don't seem to understand this, so you look for other secondary sources that claim different things to mantain your position at all costs. We are not discussing if Spain had direct colonial rule over the interior land of Patagonia (it is obvious that it didn't) we are discussing the direct rule over the coast, which was effective based on primary sources, and depicting effective claims to the interior lands in the sense of being undisputed European ruler, that is not the main objective though. Even if you are not willing to depict the rule over the coast in your map, you should mention the colony of "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán", in the actual position of Mar del Plata which you omitted, thanks. Fireinthegol ( talk) 02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For Pfly to understand, the primary source that we have is a 1803 geographic description, it says this (translated): In the north coast of the Strait of Magellan there is the Cape Forward, which divides the Patagonia in eastern and western. The eastern part was always considered part of the Vicerroyalty of Buenos Aires up to the strait of Magellan, although only having stablishments up to Río Negro and Bahía de San José. The western part belonged to the kingdom of Chile up to the same strait of Magellan, although no indian conversions were done to the south of the Chiloé Archipielago with some exceptions in the Guaytecas and Chonos archipielagos. Tierra del Fuego didn't have stablishments or conversions belonging to Buenos Aires or Chile, and the separation from the mainland made the sovereignty imaginary. I think it doesn't have a lot of "bias", but, taking only the part that is clarified (stablishments up to Río Negro and Bahía de San José), this part of the coast should be depicted.
Apart from the Spanish settlements along the coast, we can take a look at the relations with natives. In this regard, the Mapuches and Pehuenches clause in the Parliament of Quilín (1647) was: "que han de eftar en cabeza de su Mageftad, y debaxo de fu Real amparo, reconocerle vafallage como a fu feñor; y que con efto fe bolveran a poblar fus tierras, y los Efpañoles podran reedificar fus antiguas ciudades. Que eftaran obligados a falir fiempre que fueren apercibidos, con armas, y cavallos a qualquiera faccion, que fe ofrezca der fervicio de fu Mageftad," [39] (page 130) ("That they have to be under the head of the king, under his royal shelter, recognise him as their master; and that with this, their lands will be populated once more and the spaniards will reedificate their cities. That they will be forced to aid every faction that serves the king with weapons and horses every time that is needed.") Note that the Mapuches, which like this sweared their loyalty to the king of Spain, after conquered all the Patagonian zone in the process known as Araucanization. And they effectively aided the Spanish settlers in the outposts with food and weapons. In the wars of independence of Argentina and Chile, Mapuches were still loyal to the king, fighting mostly for the Spanish side. (The aid of the Mapuches was vital to the Spanish since they had lost the control of all cities and ports north of Valdivia. Mapuches valued the treaties made with the Spanish authorities) Fireinthegol ( talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, you don't seem to understand that if someone disagrees with you in the issue, it does not mean that it is a personal offense or an attack on your map. Your map is great. It does not mean that it can't be improved.
That they have to be under the head of the king, under his royal shelter, recognise him as their master; and that with this, their lands will be populated once more and the spaniards will reedificate their cities. That they will be forced to aid every faction that serves the king with weapons and horses every time that is needed. At least, this time the primary source is clear enough to don't let "interpretations" like with the word "hasta". It is not and interpretation to say that Mapuches sweared loyalty to the king of Spain. On the other hand, the words independence, border, etc, that mention the secondary sources are not in the sense of an independent state: Como hemos visto, una de las dificultades para los invasores fue el no encontrar, una estructura social jerárquica, o sea una sociedad paraestatal o estatal, por el contrario lo que encontró Valdivia y su gente fue una sociedad sin estado (Like we have seen, one of the difficulties for the invaders was finding a non-organizated society, or an non-statal society. What Valdivia found was a stateless society). So the words "independence", "border", etc, are not mentioned in the sense as independent state as today, because the Mapuches were a society with no state. Talking about the relations with the dutch: Algunos historiadores, como Villalobos, dan poca importancia a estos hechos, infiriendo algunas generalizaciones, lo cual no permite observar algunos elementos que se dan en este contexto, lo cual analizado con cierta rigurosidad permite ver claramente, que en estos años los mapuche determinan el escenario político, por un lado presionando militarmente y por otro, generando espacio para el ejercicio de la diplomacia, logrando adquirir significativas concesiones aprovechando la amenaza que significaban para la corona una eventual invasión holandesa. (Some historians, like Villalobos, give little importance to this (relations with dutch), deducing some generalizations, which don't allow to observe some elements of this context, which analized with rigurosity allow us to see, clearly, that in this years, the Mapuche determine the political scenario in two different ways, militarily and with the diplomacy, so they achieve significant concessions, taking advantage of the threat that meant to the Spanish crown a possible dutch invasion). You can find these in the same source as the treaty. You can also see I did not invent or interpreted, as you said, the fact that the Mapuches aided the royalist Spanish by seeing the article on Guerra a muerte. So I do NOT interpret the primary sources on interest. I only stated the facts that have happened between Mapuches and Spanish. The majority of Mapuches were on the loyalist side in the war of independence, that is, loyal to the king.
Treaty with Indios Pampas: 1.Las paces hechas con los españoles comprenden también a los indios pampas de la reducción de Nuestra Señora de la Concepción como a vasallos del Rey. Por consiguiente se han de olvidar las diferencias pasadas, que hubo entre el cacique Brabo, y la casa del cacique Mayupilquia, y con cualquier otro indio de la reducciòn". [ [40]] (The peace made with the spaniards include also the Pampa Indians of Nuestra señora de la Concepcion as vassals of the king. Therefore, past differences should be forgotten)
Trasamundo, you have not answered yet to this: If Beleato description didn't want to use the word "hasta" in the sense of continual possesion, then why didn't he used Hasta Puerto Deseado??. It would have been logical, because Puerto Deseado was the southernmost Spanish possesion in the Patagonia.
Trasamundo, if the amerindians sweared loyalty to the king of Spain, then why do you insist in that Spain had no influence at all in the area? I know that it is difficult to answer this questions, because your position is becoming more and more difficult to mantain. I think that it doesn't matter how many sources I get, you will never change your mind because that would mean admiting that your map is wrong to you. Admit that Spain had serious influence over natives and Europeans in the area. The sources state it.
Trasamundo, if other Europeans were not capable to settle the zone (Spanish managed to frighten the English as you said) due to Spanish influence, then why do you continue denying Spanish influnce in the area?
Even if you don't change your mind and agree to change the map, other people will come and will continuously begin the same discussion, because the sources are there to support it, and you are ignoring them.
I suggest introducing a light red colour to the zones were Spanish had considerable influence, with de jure rule over natives and de facto rule over Europeans. That would mean that some regions in north america will change from dark red to light red improving the map precission. My suggestion will certainly resolve the dispute, improve the map, and it is supported by sources. I can't find the reason why you would not like to do it, as I said, maybe its because you take map issue as personal. Fireinthegol ( talk) 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Swiss never signed a treaty swearing loyalty to the king of France. If they had done so, be sure that Swizterland would be depicted as a client state of France in the maps. You can be sceptic about the content of treaties, but their legal value is important under international law. That treaty included subordination, no matter the interpretations you may do. When Napoleon invaded Spain, Spanish were not really working for France, they were fighting against French, but Spain was effectively a client state of France, because Jose Bonaparte was the official King. The same happens here, Mapuches officially declared loyalty to the Spanish king, no matter if some Mapuches didn't because the official treaties is what count, there is no possible interpretation.
Can you look for a source that says that Puerto Deseado was administrated directly by Madrid? if not, your argument makes no sense at all.
Btw I think that if Pfly is neutral, I am in favour and IANVS is in favour, then we are 2 against 1. You cannot take a dictatorial stance in the issue.
Fireinthegol ( talk) 05:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, try to edit when you can bring a good argument like I did. And do not compare me to Cosialscastells, and do not judge my edits as rambling. Your edit is pure original research, offensive and completely useless. Go to British empire to depict all the world as British and leave this alone. Fireinthegol ( talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, following on the last section: Could you restate what it is you would like to see, Fireinthegol? After so much talk it is hard to tell exactly! Is it that you'd like the map to be red along the coast south of Río de la Plata to and including the Valdes Peninsula? I can't quite tell where the settlement of San José was, but Bahía de San José is on the north side of the narrow "neck" of the Valdes Peninsula. Is this right? By "coast" do you mean just a thin strip following the coast, or something extending farther inland? Am I right to assume you are arguing that this coastal reach between Río de la Plata and Valdes Peninsula was under Spanish control, rule, etc? I can't quite tell if you are saying it was under Spanish control or Mapuche control, with the Mapuche considered incorporated into the Spanish Empire. Pfly ( talk) 06:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this map should be the main of the empire
Fireinthegol ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that is the one that should be, as the mapuches and indios pampas sweared loyalty to the king of Spain but mantained autonomy, and the sioux north also had autonomy, even being subjects of the king. Fireinthegol ( talk) 08:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This new map is in any case better than the current one, which is a joke. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.74.199 ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why Patagonia doesn't count as Spanish, but the whole western United States does. Did Spain really have any kind of effective control over Utah and Colorado (or Minnesota and Iowa) beyond what it had in Patagonia? john k ( talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I was researching the Patagonia questions and reading (with google translate helping my very poor Spanish) the Spanish Wikipedia page/section Organización militar del Virreinato del Río de la Plata (section:) Comandancia de Marina del Río de la Plata. It seems to say that in 1802 the fleet included Corbeta Descubierta and Corbeta Atrevida, both of 20 cañones. Is it possible that these were the Descubierta and Atrevida of Alessandro Malaspina? Maybe they were simply named in honor of Malaspina's corvettes. I've researched Malaspina's voyage and his corvettes quite a bit--and just recently created the page about them. I had trouble finding out what happened to the ships after Malaspina returned to Spain in 1794. Both were only 5 years old and apparently well built. They must have been put to some use after 1794, right? I tried to find info about their fate after 1794 but got nowhere. It is possible they ended up in the Río de la Plata fleet? Or, to ask a different way, might there be Spanish sources with info about their post-1794 fate? My ability to find (and read!) Spanish sources is not good. So I post here knowing some of you read this page and are good with Spanish sources and research. Any ideas? Thanks. Pfly ( talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
As many editors have indicated, the current multi-colored map is poor and confusing. It does not show the territories of the Spanish empire with clarity or objectivity. The use of so many colors is inaccurate and unclear. It seems to portray many different empires instead of one. All other colonial empire maps in Wikipedia use one or two colors, not seven or eight: see the British, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Russian, and Italian empires. To solve this for once and for all I propose the red and pink map suggested earlier [46]. 83.50.254.101 ( talk) 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What irks me about both maps is the completely ridiculous double standard between Spanish claimed territories in Patagonia (not colored in at all!) and Spanish claimed territories in western North America (completely colored in!). Given that there were apparently Spanish settlements along the eastern coast of Patagonia, it seems almost certain there are territories along the Patagonian coast that were under far more effective Spanish control than North Dakota ever was. I don't see any basis for treating "Indians in the northern plains states and great basin who had probably never seen a Spanish person ever" as unproblematic Spanish subjects while "Indians in Patagonia who lived within a few miles of a Spanish fort" are unproblematically not Spanish subjects. 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the issue at stake here is the use of many colors on the empire map. We can discuss the issue of fronteirs in Patagonia and North America, later. The question is that the Spanish Empire is the only European colonial empire in Wikipedia which is shown with multiple colors depending on when they were lost or transferred. This is absurd, not to say ridiculous or even biased. I suggest we solve this before discussing the actual extent of the empire. JCRB ( talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
So the editors of the Spanish Empire are geniuses, and the editors of all the other articles are dumb? Wrong. The exception is this map. This is the odd one out. And don't tell me the history of other empires was "less complicated" than that of the Spanish Empire. JCRB ( talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with multiple colors on the map. It makes little sense to have a map where Spanish Morocco (acquired 1912) is the same color as territories lost in the early nineteenth century. That being said, I do wonder if it might not be better to a) have the main map show the Spanish Empire in 1800 or so, when it was at its greatest territorial extent; and b) have a series of other maps in the article that show the empire's extent at other times. john k ( talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the time that has been spent arguing about the bloody map was spent on improving the article we'd have Wikipedia7s finest article on our hands. Just try reading it, top to bottom - it's awful. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, nobody is trying to justify anything behind a "smokescreen" (as you call it) of what is clearly a reasonable argument: that most other colonial empire maps have one or two colors (not five or six) and that the use of many colors seems to portray different nations or empires instead of ONE. Many editors have shown their disagreement with this multi-colored map which you keep pushing for. This argument has been explained ad nauseam here, and the links to eight different colonial maps with only one (maximum two) colors, have also been produced repeatedly.
As for the maps you have shown with more than two colors, they are clearly not relevant to the point. First, they are not the main map used in an empire article. For the main maps of the empires you mention, see: the German Empire, the German Colonial Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, all with one color. See also the Roman Empire (one color), the Muslim conquests (three colors), the Kingdom of Prussia (one color), the Athenian Empire (two colors), the Macedonian Empire (one color) and the Byzantine Empire (one color). See also the Crown of Aragon (one color), the Thai Empire (one color) and the Japanese Empire (two colors). Second, some of them are not even "empire maps". The colors used in this German map [55] do not reflect different territorial extents, but the subnational units that made up the empire. As for the map titled "Pertes territorial allemagne" [56] meaning "Territorial losses of Germany" this has nothing to do with the issue at stake, ie. imperial maps.
You have really gone out of your way to find strange maps with more than three colors to prove that the use of many colors is "common". Frankly, that's a pretty weak point. Your examples are obvious exceptions to the general rule of using one or two colors. In other cases your examples are not even empire maps. To conclude, I suggest the possibility of using this multi-colored map at a later stage in the article, if anything. As for the main map, the best option, as User:John K suggested, is one that shows the greatest territorial extent of the Spanish Empire (circa 1800). If more than one color is used, these should be of a similar tone (ie. yellow, orange and brown) like in the Muslim Conquests map with three colors. Other maps with other extents of the empire can be placed throughout the article that explain the different territorial changes. JCRB ( talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's solve this once and for all. Let's vote. Administrator here should announce a voting poll.-- Infinauta ( talk) 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why the hell is Argentina not included in the map of the Spanish Empire? Argentina is one of the most important Spanish ex-colonies and it's not even included in the map because some people here claim that 'it didn't officialy belong to Spain'. Isn't the fact that Argentineans today speak Spanish and that many of them actually descend from Spaniards reason enough?
And why make a map depicting the period of time in which Spain LOST the colonies, who cares about that. Following that logic, why not say when the territories were WON and not lost?
And I agree that the different colors make it seem like the map is about different empires instead of just one.
The map is PRO-BRITISH empire propaganda bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the IP edits of this article since September 1 have been vandalism. There is also a long-time edit warrior on the subject of maps who constantly shows up here with different IPs. This is presumably one of his edits. (See the protection log for previous history of the map war). Is it time to restore semiprotection? EdJohnston ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not vandalism to say the truth, and the truth is that the map is propagandistic and wrong, and it's done on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 ( talk) 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just go and see which map is on the actual Spanish page of the Spanish Empire and oh surprise it's not the multi-colored one, because the editors of that page know it's fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Philip I was king of england. I'd put England like spanish colonia too. spurce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.55 ( talk) 12:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I have readded the map for Spanish America in 1620. It was removed because "Spanish American Kingdoms??-furthermore inaccurate: conquest of Sonora began c.1630, Baja California c.1680, and Nuevo Santander in the 18th century" These comments are themselves incorrect. The region of New Mexico was explored as early as the 1540s and permanent settlements established by the end of the 16th century. While it is true that Sonora was largely barren of Spanish settlement, it was still claimed by Spain. The same is true of both Baja California which was explored as early as the 1540s and Nuevo Santander which had been explored by 1600. Finally, the title is correct. The Spanish did not call their oversea possessions colonies. They used the term "reino" meaning kingdom. The proper title for New Spain was the Kingdom of New Spain. the term viceroyalty is an English phrase applied because the highest secular official of the kingdom was a viceroy. I am more than happy to adjust the map for possible inaccuracies but it is a good depiction of the extent of Spanish claims ca. 1620. Moreover, this map corresponds to the boundaries shown in other published sources. Lockhart, James; Schwartz, Stuart (1983). Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America And Brazil. Cambridge University Press. p. 255. Grin20 ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this is really a good heading for this time period. If a reading is skimming through the piece, they may assume that the Spanish Empire had no flaws during this time, especially if they had already read the article about Spain's Golden Age. This was also a time where the Spanish had to deal with the realization that they had their own agency and in some cases, they could not rely on God to take care of them. Many would argue that after the Armada was defeated by the English, Spain went into a decline. Not only did they lose the prestige that they had once carried, but from this time on, they had stretched their resources so far, that it was about to snap and their empire would soon shrink. Before too long the Portuguese would disappear as well as colonies in the Americas. Spartemis ( talk) 06:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
I would completely agree with you when it comes to the heading. After the defeat of the Spanish armada people became much more secular. Although the armada was not destroyed people began to understand that the actions of humans had a much greater effect than divine intervention would. This change to thought had a lot of Spain rethinking its beliefs and if God supported Spain's cause or not. However, I think that to say Spain was in decline would be untrue. It's true that Spain was going through a time of many problems, but that doesn't mean that it was in decline. A period of adaptation would be a better way to describe this time in Spain's life. All countries have problems at one point and to say that Spain was declining might be overstating matters. Voitik2 ( talk) 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Mexico-city-cathedral.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 August 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
I propose that a new map should be found for the main map image for the article. I propose this because it includes "territories of the Iberian Union". The Iberian Union was a personal union, not an official unification of the two kingdoms. This being said, the Portuguese territory and her colonies were never part of the Spanish empire, they were the Portuguese empire. They both shared a king, for a time, but that did not make the Portuguese empire a part of the Spanish empire, but they were run side-by-side. The current map is misleading. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 12:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So what is your answer now?
Cristiano Tomás (
talk)
05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree?
Cristiano Tomás (
talk)
06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what those arguments could have been but it is ridiculous to have such a colorful map for the introduction, no offense. That degree of detail must go somewhere else in the article. See the British Empire map, the Portuguese empire map, the French empire map, etcetera etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 ( talk) 09:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism. The flag of spanish armies commonly used the coats-of-arms of the "king" or the "place", not the Burgundy cross flag alone. Much more important, ¡Spanish empire is not an Army or military unit!.-- Santos30 ( talk) 10:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken Trasamundo. The Flag of Castile and León is for the Kingdom (territory), not for the king (person). Some of the King's blazon have a cross of Burgundy, but cross of Burgundy never appear in the flag of the Castile. Burgundy is a flag of military units, King's blazon or Carlism.
You put a several references to publications but any of this talk about a flag of Spanish empire. The last talk about vessels, Louisiana and a kings's blazon. But any of your references say nothing about a flag of Spanish Empire. And who say that "other areas had more important" -than Americas and Spanish East Indies-?, who? you?. Your other references in spanish do not demonstrate that you say in english (neither in spanish). Put a published source, not your ideas. Citation needed: burgundy was a flag of Spanish empire or something, clear. Or delete the flag of Carlism, Tercio or King's blazon.-- Santos30 ( talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The European and Mediterranean territories had their role within the empire, but the most important territory was Castile.
There are not a published source about Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion make me see that your map Trasamundo is wrong too: where are the kingdoms of Spain in your map?!.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
After a long discussion about your original research of Burgundy flag you Trasamundo can not give a published source with citation for Spanish Empire. I give very clear citation and picture for Spanish Empire flag:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 23:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Spanish empire is not by any european title because The kings of Spain on 1556 lost the title of Emperor ( Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor). But we have a clear evidence that flag of Castile-Leon is the spanish flag of Age of Discovery, the flag of Spanish empire from Americas to Philipinas. All the flags of spanish conquerors and explorers have the same simbol of the kingdom Castile-Leon alone, a simbol of the Kings of Spain that could be alone in their flags. Furthermore, the simbol of Castile-Leon alone is the first national spanish flag.
For the contrary, there are not any evidence to use the cross of burgundy alone for Spanish Empire. Cross of Burgundy is a militar blazon to add for the flags of spanish military units or the flags of the kings. But this flags have others simbols: personal (as Austrias, Bourbons), or cities (as Castile, Aragon), armies, etc. It is rare the cross of Burgundy alone in Spanish flags. Cross of Burgundy alone is a simbol of Carlism, and a simbol in Francoist Spain, and, very important, a simbol of Nazi people of ( SS organization).
We can not use military or fascist simbol (cross burgundy alone) as a flag for Spanish empire. You Trasamundo, along this discussion can not give a published source with citation for Spanish empire. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, but I think it is better the simbol of Castile-Leon, because it was: the main Kingdom of Spain, the kingdoms of Americas and Asia, and the first national flag of Spain.
I propose Wikipedia:Third opinion.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo your map is wrong too: your map does not show the kingdoms of Spain.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Señala Rodríguez Lizcano que las banderas que prevalecen en España son las siguientes: siglos XV y XVI: blanca y Cruz Roja de San Andrés; siglo XVII, primera mitad: rojas; siglo XVII, segunda mitad: colores diversos y Cruz de Borgoña; siglo XVIII: blancas con la Cruz de Borgoña. |
Lizcano Rodriguez notes that prevailing in Spain flags are: XV and XVI centuries: White and Red Cross of St. Andrew, XVII century, first half: red; XVII century, second half: different colors and Cross of Burgundy; XVIII century: white with the Cross of Burgundy. |
By defintion in the introduction: The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español) comprised territories and colonies administered by Spain in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. It originated during the Age of Exploration and was one of the first global empires. Then, Spanish empire is not the Naval, Army, or fortification or any military unit of Spain. Again and again, the "Spanish empire" needs a flag, and by definition it is the territories and colonies (those include the kingdoms of Spain missing in Trasamundo's map). Spanish empire is not the idea of Trasamundo: "Spanish power against their opponents" (with the military flag of cross of burgundy). -- Santos30 ( talk) 10:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contributions Jaontiveros and I am glad because in this case we agree. As it has been said by Jaontiveros and myself the first national flag of Spain was established in 1843.
The only thing that supports the use of quartering of castles and lions is simply a particular belief based on a simple deduction: as the new world was included to the Crown of Castile then the flag of the Spanish empire is the kingdom of Castile.
Beyond the use in particular times and places from a variety of royal emblems, after all the Spanish empire also included European domains not inclued in the crown of Castile, which were the center of Spanish politics for two centuries as it is dealed with extensively in the article, while was left to his fate the defense of the American territories, as I quoted above.
While all that is shown is a hodgepodge of deductions about the quartering of castles and lions, Jaontiveros and myself have shown the relevance of the cross of burgundy that fully justify their inclusion and permanence in the infobox. The infobox country does not require that be included official emblems. Taking as an example the article France, there it appears an unofficial emblem as a substitute of the coat of arms. There is no official emblem for the country or the Republic of France, but the emblem that appears in the article is to identify France with respect to other nations, and this is equivalent to the cross of Burgundy and the Spanish empire. And since the Spanish empire as such, was not a official entity with more reason there isn't any obligation to employ an official emblem, but one emblem that had significance for its identificative use. Despite taking an symbol to represent and identify the French Republic without being official, in the article of France has not been any kind of discussion about it. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, does not rule here because the only doubt is a hodgepodge of beliefs and personal deductions. Trasamundo ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo the doubt is because there are not any published source for use the carlist flag in Spanish Empire.
Facts:
Jaontiveros, not only the main territories, the most important events and personalities of Spanish Empire was under flags of Castile-Lion: Christopher Columbus, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, Ferdinand Magellan, Miguel López de Legazpi. [123] The Spanish Armada fight under the flags of Castile-Lion on 1588 in Europe. [124] [125].
No reason to put a flag of Carlism or Francoist Spain (Red cross burgundy in a white flag) in this article. Cross of Burgundy element must to be with other elements to be a historic flag. Other color for the flag and other elements (the main element of Spain is Castile-Lion). -- Santos30 ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose again Wikipedia:Third opinion for this problems:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 01:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There are other options to put cross of Burgundy without fascist flag:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 02:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that this discussion does not lead anywhere, I am going to clarify the matter:
Although at no time it hs been said that the flag of the cross of Burgundy is the flag of the Spanish empire, simply that it was the most representative and identificative of the Spanish Empire, however, Santos30 couldn't care less what it has been said, and he continues to put words into someone else's mouth.
It has been demonstrated its character as a Spanish symbol as in [141] [142] [143] [144]. It has been demonstrated its use both during the time of the Hapsburg and the Bourbon as most prominently, common, ordinary standard. Also its use over the Spanish former dominions. Therefore has been proved its relevance for the article of the Spanish Empire. This relevance is recognized today, so the historian Juan Miguel Zunzunegui writes in his historical novel: [145] un estandarte de la cruz de Borgoña, escudo del imperio español
Despite the references mainly contributed by Jaontiveros which show that the Cross of Burgundy could show alone. [146] had long featured a red raguly saltire cross on a white blackground, Santos30 couldn't care less and he'll say that it had to have something else, but coming from someone that approved a flag of the eighteenth century as the standard of Charles V or says that the first national flag of Spain dates since 1785 when at that time only changed the naval flag... and of course it was a Carlist symbol.
Santos30 by no means has demonstrated that the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period extended for ever and ever. Santos30 creates an original research through of the deduction that if the overseas territory were included in the crown of Castile is able to extend the symbols simply on the basis that the explorers and conquerors used a standard of the kingdom, and from there it invents its use for centuries, but the Spanish empire was not only the discovery and conquest, mantaining a belief that the symbols used in this period could be kept for ever and ever at any time and place is a naive but invalid deduction; but also, whereas it has been demonstrated the use of the cross of Burgundy for centuries, Santos30 has not demonstrated anything about the quartering of castles and lions, not as abbreviated armoirial of the king, but as standard the kingdom that was used in America, in spite of the laws of the Indies did not mention it and the only mentioned is the royal standard. And secondly it also fails because the explorers and conquerors only used the royal standard, as Balboa, Magellan Cortés Columbus... Even the reference shown by Santos30 to evidence the flag of Castille and Leon by Spanish Armada only mentions the royal standard [147], and also Se hizo por entonces para el Parlamento un juego de tapices que representaba varios episodios de la armada: John Pine los reprodujo en grabado y en muchos galeones españoles se ve la bandera blanca con la cruz de Borgoña. I suppose that Santos30 must have a real mess to understand that it was the royal standard. I said above that but throughout the centuries the king's banner varied with the kings, and they existed variants, complete and abbreviated, and relating to this an user have expressed the same concern on his talk page [148]
I know that santos30 will say I'm wrong, and although he still has not demonstrated the use the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period throughout the centuries, not as abbreviated arms of the king, but as standard the kingdom, Santos30 takes it for granted, verifiability must be something that Santos30 requires for others but not for himself. But fact that los reinos de Indias se incorporan a la corona, no al reino de Castilla [149] nullifies completely the invented claim of Santos30 to extend automatically that standard of kingdom wherever.
Yet despite the political weight of the Crown of Castile, the article is not called Castilian empire, but Spanish empire, simply because it covers a space larger than the crown of Castile. If the Crown of Castile had more weight does not mean that historical events that occurred in the Spanish empire was spread by many different contexts, even with bigger political interest for ruling authorities, and outside the geographical area of the crown of Castile, but not the Spanish empire.
During a historical period of several centuries there was a representative emblem along the same, which was the cross of Burgundy as has been mentioned by Jaontiveros and myself, and certainly the infobox does not prevent to place it as an representative emblem. There was the administrative entity of the Spanish empire, so it is not able to draw at all costs an official flag of an entity that was not official. The emblem of the cross of Burgundy can be used by its representative and identificative character, in the same way as the French national emblem is not the official emblem of the country but it is used as such. The military nature of the cross of Burgundy symbol is perfectly feasible for the infobox not due to be military but for being representative, and indeed the Roman aquila appears in the infobox of the article Roman Empire and it is a military symbol of the Roman legions.
Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page. [150] Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?. Trasamundo ( talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
We can put spanish symbol of cross of Burgundy here in Spanish empire ( Trasamundo consensus), maybe better with the first spanish flag 1785 to avoidance any doubt, but not the white flag of carlism or other Fascist or Nazi symbols. Sorry no.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Some points to make:
My position is that the Cross of Burgundy flag (the rectangled one) should be brought back into the articles from which they were removed by Santos. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 04:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) See diferences:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
"The Empire on which the sun never sets: The Golden Age" is much too long and terribly, terrible clumsy for a subtitle. The original "Sun Never Sets" was short and attention catching. I've left the ":Golden Age" even though this expression is so common in so many different history articles as to be commonplace and boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.33.141 ( talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Pay attention to the history of the discussion page. User the Red Hat is erasing critical information introduced by other users oin an act of vandalism. I will not engage in an edit war. Just pay attention at what he does. He has erased some comments and a map introduced as a comparison for the double standards used here. Personally I am also starting to think that he and Lord Corwallis are trolls of the same person. anyway his conduct is what should be judged. Look at what he is deleting from the discussion page-- JovetheGod ( talk) 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry what?. You Lord Cornwallis make against me an ad-hominem attack. Im put the map make for Red Hat to prove the affirmation of Double standards.-- Resvoluci ( talk) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Here the map of British Empire by Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
:
-- Resvoluci ( talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
For god' s sake stop using the sockpuppetry issue to avoid the main issue. I am not that Cossialcastels. ?Try and proof it if you can, Red Hat. There are many people here you disagree with you, that is all. I myself suspect that the Red Hat and Lord Corwallis or whatever is the same person, but I may be wrong, so whatever. The main issue is the clear double standard. We all know that in this and in many other subjects cherry picking information we can write very different articles, in this case maps, using as many sources as we want. So, the main issue is the standard. I haved spoken of simple comparisons like Patagonia in the Spanish map, Amazonia in the Portuguese map,Antarctica or the North Pole, in the British map. Just a few examples that clearly show the different standards used. I hope to come to an agreement that is reasonable and honest. I have a busy life and I am leaving you for some time. In case of need, you know that I vote for the map that I have reintroduced several times and that was there before, also after a long discussion. Good luck and I hope that honest views will prevail. -- 81.33.232.182 ( talk) 11:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 18, 2009 I uploaded two maps, one of the British empire claims with names to all the places it claimed throughout its history, and the other was of the Spanish Empire. They are both on wikimedia commons and they are called:
File:British Empire (including names).png File:Spanish Empire (including names).png
I was successful in adding the British map to the British Empire page, replacing the old one. I feel that these two maps are more accurate and explanatory. I was not able to add the Spanish Empire map to its page because of protection. The map that is currently there is unattractive, does not show the lines of the countries that have been formed because of the empires in our present day of the borders of the territories of Spanish claims. My map on the Spanish Empire lets you see our present day borders shadowed in the back ground and brown lines around the Spanish Territories that existed at certain times in its history. Please try to add this map to the page and replace the map that is there with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet ( talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind Mr. Red Hat that this page does not belong him, or to any one editor or group of editors. There is no consensus for this map. Since it was introduced a few weeks ago, there have been constant messages of criticism, be it by established users or by editors who have not registered, which let me remind you, is also legitimate. The existing map is confusing, messy, and reveals an anti-Spanish bias which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please revert it to the previous one or we will need to go to dispute resolution. JCRB ( talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Could someone change the map to File:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg please? They are the same, but this one is being deleted and would improve the Commons better if it was, (to reduce redundancy and clutter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 ( talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi guys, i find this garbled:
For instance, traditionally, territories such as the Low Countries or Spanish Netherlands were included as they were part of the possessions of the King of Spain, governed by Spanish officials, and defended by Spanish troops. However, authors like the British historian Henry Kamen contend that these territories were never integrated into a Spanish state and instead formed part of the wider Habsburg possessions.
What?
Kamen Argues that the nothern provinces were never integrated to the Spanish State (as we can understand ruled de facto from Madrid) due the cruelty of Alba in the beginning of the revolt. That consecuently caused the Eighty Years' War. (Despite the first stanzza of the dutch national anthem dating from 1568), But the catholic provinces of the south ( Spanish Netherlands article ) were definitely integrated to the Spanish State, not only to the Spanish Habsburgs, but to the Spanish Bourbons under Philip V of Spain in 1701 ... Veracruzian ( talk) 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So wha?. don't you get it?. This article is dominated by a group whose sole aim is to belittle anything related to the Spanish empire, just read the discussion and to what the pay attention and what they ignore. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.8 ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I suggest we ask for the page to be protected again. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to begin reworking this article so that it can get towards GA, and finally FA status, as I did with British Empire. However, this will involve major changes to the article, because it's extremely poorly written, it goes into far too much detail on certain topics, and it strays very far from the manual of style. One major issue I have with the article is the huge discussion of affairs in Europe. This should be cut down to a couple of paragraphs and much more space devoted to events in the overseas colonies. Before I embark on this and get reverted, however, I just want to make sure I have people's support here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
That map is a masterpiece! trasamundo señor you are the new Velasquez! Beautiful map with seven shades that please the eye and I also love how small the territories of empire are shown! good job trasamundo, keep it up! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.118.23 ( talk) 05:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
No mention whatsoever of genocide, plunder and squander of the greatest silver and gold mines in the world or the abusive treatment of Indians in ocupied lands. Bravo!. Please aply it to other pages, such as Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide or the current Sudanese genocide. (btw, LOVE that legacy section, it's cutesy how naive it is)-- 99.192.61.125 ( talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you could start with the US too. I wonder why most people of Amerindian ancestry actually live or come from Hispanic America? Were they not supposed to have disappeared under the evil Spanish. How come they indeed disappeared in the US or Canada? How come Amerindians and Mestizos make up 90% of the population of Mexico and they are almost extinguished in the US, if Hispanics do not count? History is very funny, right?. How much cheap anti Spanich propaganda! Move on, it is becoming outdated! I would like to hear of an empire that did not impose itself with violence, especially half a millenium ago. If you know of one, please tell me. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.193 ( talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the map is extremely bad. I agree with previous complaints about it. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.236.188 ( talk) 16:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Please change the map, I think the map in the spanish page is way better than this :S —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroesuper ( talk • contribs) 06:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly making this edit which apart from being extremely poor English, is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree (yes, it was technically Castile, but English language historians commonly use the term "Spain" after 1492). Does anyone feel that the edits should stand? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}} Please add an interwiki link for the Macedonian version. Thank you.“ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.28.216.124 ( talk • contribs) 2009-09-17T18:09:34
This article on Spanish Empire should include a cross-link to the 1573 Laws of the Indies (wiki entry), preferably at the end of section 3.3 discussing the apogee of the Spanish empire under Philip II. In particular, this should mention the Laws of the Indies codification of new city planning, the first attempt to abstract principles of urban design (without a given site) since Vitruvius. This aspect of the laws is not evident from the indigenous related laws cited in the article (Burgos and the New Laws).-- My4lane ( talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (AEST)
As explained in previous messages, the current multi-color map is inappropriate. It seems to describe the Spanish Empire as many individual states or kingdoms, separate from each other. This is obviously wrong. The previous version of the map should be inserted, with one color for all territories once belonging to Spain or her monarchy. This is how it's done in all other "Empire" maps, for example the British Empire, the French Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Dutch Empire, the German Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Italian Empire and others. There is no reason why the Spanish Empire should be different. JCRB ( talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
---
Well, then be careful with The Red Hat. He has already shown to be one little Wiki-dictator, famous anti Spanish user and even more famous British propagandist. By the way. Do you see the British Empire map? Including part of Antartica, etc, and the Spanish one missing Patagonia etc. What a shame, this is outrageous and shameful. What a pity for this Encyclo. Just cheap Brit propaganda. Joshe.
--- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.124.181.51 ( talk) 09:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
The map is no good. Just make comparisons with the maps of other Empires. It is no minor issue. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.202.55 ( talk) 13:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello propagandist. If you want to insist on anyone who is not in agreement with you Cosiadestels, OK. Your attitude speaks for itself. Anyway, there is my two cents. I have a life and I am not embarked on any propaganda crusade. Goodbye. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.156.224 ( talk) 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Guess what is going to happen? With that argument this map is going to stay like this and all the others like that. Is that not a double standard?. Sure it is not. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.156.224 ( talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the map provides redundant info. The main map should be used to show the extent of the empire, not when every single colony became independent. That dates can be found in the article and in other multiple articles, it only makes it imposible to understand, it would be easier to understand with 3 colours at much (to distinguish spain, portugal, and claimed but not controlled areas). Like in this one:
Enriquegoni (
talk)
00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I like that map too. Much better, complete and realistic that the one in the article now. Toni. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.55.201.213 ( talk) 19:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
Just a little note. This is what the introdutcion states. "Later expeditions established an empire that stretched from present-day Canada in North America to Tierra del Fuego in South America". As you know, Tierra del Fuego is the southernmost tip in south american mainland. But in the map, this zone is vanished from the empire. Patagonia was ofically part of the empire. When Argentina and Chile became independent, they automatically owned those territories, and respected the borders oficially stablished during the empire. It was not claimed by France or Britain. There were several spnish setlements there (not even one british or french setlement). It should be light red, because indigenous tribes there were never loyal to the empire. But if you completely vanish Tierra del Fuego from the empire, I should begin vanishing territories from British empire like Iraq (never fully controlled), Antartica. The portuguese map by this standard will have to suffer serious modification, vanishing most of the coloured zones. The French map also, vanishing indian territories. The dutch also, as lots of the islands claimed were not even discovered until later
Enriquegoni ( talk) 17:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I was trying to convert the existing map to a 2 coloured one but I dont have the appropiate photoshop. Maybe you can show me where to download one, I would thank that vry much. Actually there are two main problems with the map, the first and most important is that it shows too many colours making very difficult to distinguish spain, portugal or whatever, the second is that the british wikipedia, sorry, the english wikipedia, can be said to follow double standards in this case, because every single empire I've seen apart from spanish shows "claimed but not controlled territory". In most cases, it doesnt even use another colour to distinguish it from fully controlled areas. Note that the British empire talk page has had multiple discussions on this subject and has never removed a part of the map, not even considered using another colour to make clear it was only a claim, not a real involvement in the area, like was the case of Iraq, north pole, antartica, australian dessert, african desert. All of this areas were only de jure parts of the empire. The same as Patagonia in this case. The funniest part of the subject is that The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and company in the british empire talk page are not talking about "removing" or making this things clear, they are talking about ¡¿including more?! parts into the british map. Sorry, but I can only laugh against so much british bias. Enriquegoni ( talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I attend without surprise at the umpteenth repetition of a map with colors is confusing or said otherwise, only a color-blind can understand maps. If someone wants to see the real extension of the Spanish empire then it is so simple as seeing all the colored areas. It's a good job that there are more people who still want to have more information than a bi/monochrome mute map.
I ignore what encyclopaedic criterion is to establish how the others make it badly then I will do it also. If the criterion is as it appears so in an article, then here also, however, that is contrary to wikipedia policy as we read in WP:CIRCULAR. Well I can affirm that to make this map I had to trace sources, even about international law, without drawing on either on beliefs or suppositions and without worrying which are the borders of other maps, especially when the technical means that could arrange Spain or Portugal between the 16th-18th centuries to control and to administer territories were worst than those France or UK could arrange between the 19th-20th centuries.
How my mind is to offer a well-referenced map, I have received suggestions about Minorca and Sienna. As Minorca was lost during the period of the treaty of Utrecht, I should reflect it with its pink color, and since nowadays it is a Spanish territory, I should put the island with a double color. I know that someone will say to me that it is confusing, but imagine that someone who does not know anything (or know little) about history of Spain, when he sees a double color, he will estimate with a glimpse that in Minorca occurred something in its history, whereas a monocolor map does not offer any additional information at all.
Meanwhile, Siena turns out to be a bit more confused for me, and because of it, I open this post, if it should be necessary to include it. The references indicate that due to the revolt of Siena:
I believe that the references show that during a brief period, Philip II as king of Spain, not as prince, arbitrated and directed issues of Siena as part of his Italian policy, whereas the sources do not mention anything about the government of Ferdinand of Habsburg, then King of the Romans, in Siena until 1560 (then emperor). Therefore Siena should be included in the map.
Trasamundo (
talk)
12:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Not here: Viceroy; Not there: Viceroy_(disambiguation); Not even there: [16] ---- IANVS ( talk) 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I think that the coast of the Argentnian Patagonia should be included on the map, it had numerous colonies and forts, the control of the important whale industry. The patagonia zone had 2 comisarios superintendentes (something like governors). There are numerous sources that state this:
"Esta Bahía de San Julián, sus terrenos y costas, el Puerto Deseado, Santa Elena, San Gregorio, San Jorge y Santa Cruz, con todas sus dependencias de esta costa Patagónica pertenecen al dominio del Rey de España, de que ha tenido y tiene la posesión, y como tal, de su Real Orden se visitan anualmente para que ninguna Nación los pueda ocupar" "En la costa setentrional del Estrecho de Magallanes está el Morro de Santa Águeda o Cabo Forward, desde el cual corre hacia Norte la Cordillera de los Andes y divide a la tierra patagónica en oriental y occidental. La oriental siempre se consideró del Virreinato de Buenos Aires hasta el Estrecho de Magallanes... La Patagonia occidental pertenecía al Reino de Chile hasta el mismo Estrecho de Magallanes, no obstante que las conversiones de indios no pasaban de lo más Sud del Archipiélago de Chiloé con algunas entradas que hacían los misioneros en el Archipiélago de Guaytecas o de Chonos" There is an article on spanish wiki called "Establecimientos Patagonicos" that lists a lot more colonies than the ones shown in this article, I dont know why for example "Pueblo de Nueva Murcia", "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" (actual city of Viedma, capital city of Rio Negro) and more are not included in the map. There were also forts, in Rio Negro there were 3 forts. Then you take a look at other possesion maps and see Antartica, North Pole, Sahara desert as possesions, and it is quite disturbing. Fireinthegol ( talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a reason why amerindian countries or boundaries are not shown on the XVIII century maps. Not because there is an europeans bias but because amerindian was a culture that made no claims on sovereignty or formed countries, they lived in tribes, they didnt collect taxes, they didnt have the concepts of country or private property. Even today, there are tribes in South America that are not really controlled or pay taxes or have an ID card. If you take a look at colonial maps, you will see that the Sahara desert belonged to France, the Iraq and Australian deserts to Britain. Not because they had secure land routes (they didn't), but because other European nations wouldn't dare to enter without an army. The objective of Spain in the Patagonia was not to subjugate the natives. The objective were the maritime resources, the rivers and stopping Britain and France to stablish there. They were successful in all of these. When the United States purchased Louisiana from France, they stil had to deal with natives, because France legally owned that territory over Europeans, but didnt control it over the natives. Australia didn't have control over the aboriginal people until XX century, so it's difficult to accept that aboriginals recognized British rule. Trasamundo, answer to this. Baleato's description in 1803 says that Eastern Patagonia had no further stablishments than Río Negro and Bahía de San José, but in the time, Puerto Deseado existed. Why didnt he said "de no tener mas establecimientos que hasta Puerto Deseado" ? In Río Negro, there were 2 forts and an stablishment: En 1782 Francisco de Biedma fundó un fuerte en cada orilla del río Negro para resguardar a Carmen de Patagones, el Fuerte San Javier al sur y el Fuerte Invencible al norte. (In 1782, Francisco de Biema founded 2 forts in Río Negro, one at each side of the river to secure Carmen de Patagones). It is not only the maritime routes that were used, the control over the rivers was also important. Fuera de que se podría descubrir un camino más corto para navegar este río, con barcos hasta Valdivia. The enclaves that you say were controlled the strategic positions, and always had 1 or 2 forts to protect them. Apart from this, in the atcual location of Mar del Plata there was other establishment, "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán", En 1746 se estableció una reducción jesuítica llamada "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán" adyacente a la Laguna Las Cabrillas que llegó a albergar cerca de quinientas personas (In 1746 it was stablished a colony which had 500 inhabitants). This meant a colony every 200km along the coast up to Peninsula of Valdés. Maybe that is why Baleato's description used "up to" San José, because an stablishment every 200km is rather continuous. Fireinthegol ( talk) 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree that there are a few zones that are fully coloured but where the natives were not subjugated, like in parts of actual United states where it is known that Amerindians were not subjugated until the XIX century (this standard would affect French and British empire maps mostly). But if you could ask a XVIII century Britishman who owned the Patagonian zone, he would very likely answer that Spain, because it was the undisputed international power there, exploiting resources, trading with natives and controlling the zone. I think there is a difference between not having pressence at all (not coloured), being undisputed ruler (half coloured) and being undistputed ruler and settler (full coloured). That difference should be marked. Fireinthegol ( talk) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I've read some of the discussions (all of them is impossible). Like a lot of them, I have the opinion that there is a double standard regarding British and Spanish issues (maybe because majority of editors are British or anglosaxon). I know I am not the first one that finds this map controversial, and probably I won't be the last one, so I think this should be resolved in a voting here, or a voting to include a standard over general imperial maps. Wether if the standard is ruling over western nations and using the natural resources (like in every map other than Spanish), or ruling over western nations, using the natural resources and ruling over natives so they worked for the empire it makes a big difference. Fireinthegol ( talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo don't try to judge me in your comments. Your map has generated an incredible amount of discussions, it is highly controversial because the primary sources clearly state that Spain had control over the coast up to Río Negro and San José and you don't seem to understand this, so you look for other secondary sources that claim different things to mantain your position at all costs. We are not discussing if Spain had direct colonial rule over the interior land of Patagonia (it is obvious that it didn't) we are discussing the direct rule over the coast, which was effective based on primary sources, and depicting effective claims to the interior lands in the sense of being undisputed European ruler, that is not the main objective though. Even if you are not willing to depict the rule over the coast in your map, you should mention the colony of "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán", in the actual position of Mar del Plata which you omitted, thanks. Fireinthegol ( talk) 02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
For Pfly to understand, the primary source that we have is a 1803 geographic description, it says this (translated): In the north coast of the Strait of Magellan there is the Cape Forward, which divides the Patagonia in eastern and western. The eastern part was always considered part of the Vicerroyalty of Buenos Aires up to the strait of Magellan, although only having stablishments up to Río Negro and Bahía de San José. The western part belonged to the kingdom of Chile up to the same strait of Magellan, although no indian conversions were done to the south of the Chiloé Archipielago with some exceptions in the Guaytecas and Chonos archipielagos. Tierra del Fuego didn't have stablishments or conversions belonging to Buenos Aires or Chile, and the separation from the mainland made the sovereignty imaginary. I think it doesn't have a lot of "bias", but, taking only the part that is clarified (stablishments up to Río Negro and Bahía de San José), this part of the coast should be depicted.
Apart from the Spanish settlements along the coast, we can take a look at the relations with natives. In this regard, the Mapuches and Pehuenches clause in the Parliament of Quilín (1647) was: "que han de eftar en cabeza de su Mageftad, y debaxo de fu Real amparo, reconocerle vafallage como a fu feñor; y que con efto fe bolveran a poblar fus tierras, y los Efpañoles podran reedificar fus antiguas ciudades. Que eftaran obligados a falir fiempre que fueren apercibidos, con armas, y cavallos a qualquiera faccion, que fe ofrezca der fervicio de fu Mageftad," [39] (page 130) ("That they have to be under the head of the king, under his royal shelter, recognise him as their master; and that with this, their lands will be populated once more and the spaniards will reedificate their cities. That they will be forced to aid every faction that serves the king with weapons and horses every time that is needed.") Note that the Mapuches, which like this sweared their loyalty to the king of Spain, after conquered all the Patagonian zone in the process known as Araucanization. And they effectively aided the Spanish settlers in the outposts with food and weapons. In the wars of independence of Argentina and Chile, Mapuches were still loyal to the king, fighting mostly for the Spanish side. (The aid of the Mapuches was vital to the Spanish since they had lost the control of all cities and ports north of Valdivia. Mapuches valued the treaties made with the Spanish authorities) Fireinthegol ( talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, you don't seem to understand that if someone disagrees with you in the issue, it does not mean that it is a personal offense or an attack on your map. Your map is great. It does not mean that it can't be improved.
That they have to be under the head of the king, under his royal shelter, recognise him as their master; and that with this, their lands will be populated once more and the spaniards will reedificate their cities. That they will be forced to aid every faction that serves the king with weapons and horses every time that is needed. At least, this time the primary source is clear enough to don't let "interpretations" like with the word "hasta". It is not and interpretation to say that Mapuches sweared loyalty to the king of Spain. On the other hand, the words independence, border, etc, that mention the secondary sources are not in the sense of an independent state: Como hemos visto, una de las dificultades para los invasores fue el no encontrar, una estructura social jerárquica, o sea una sociedad paraestatal o estatal, por el contrario lo que encontró Valdivia y su gente fue una sociedad sin estado (Like we have seen, one of the difficulties for the invaders was finding a non-organizated society, or an non-statal society. What Valdivia found was a stateless society). So the words "independence", "border", etc, are not mentioned in the sense as independent state as today, because the Mapuches were a society with no state. Talking about the relations with the dutch: Algunos historiadores, como Villalobos, dan poca importancia a estos hechos, infiriendo algunas generalizaciones, lo cual no permite observar algunos elementos que se dan en este contexto, lo cual analizado con cierta rigurosidad permite ver claramente, que en estos años los mapuche determinan el escenario político, por un lado presionando militarmente y por otro, generando espacio para el ejercicio de la diplomacia, logrando adquirir significativas concesiones aprovechando la amenaza que significaban para la corona una eventual invasión holandesa. (Some historians, like Villalobos, give little importance to this (relations with dutch), deducing some generalizations, which don't allow to observe some elements of this context, which analized with rigurosity allow us to see, clearly, that in this years, the Mapuche determine the political scenario in two different ways, militarily and with the diplomacy, so they achieve significant concessions, taking advantage of the threat that meant to the Spanish crown a possible dutch invasion). You can find these in the same source as the treaty. You can also see I did not invent or interpreted, as you said, the fact that the Mapuches aided the royalist Spanish by seeing the article on Guerra a muerte. So I do NOT interpret the primary sources on interest. I only stated the facts that have happened between Mapuches and Spanish. The majority of Mapuches were on the loyalist side in the war of independence, that is, loyal to the king.
Treaty with Indios Pampas: 1.Las paces hechas con los españoles comprenden también a los indios pampas de la reducción de Nuestra Señora de la Concepción como a vasallos del Rey. Por consiguiente se han de olvidar las diferencias pasadas, que hubo entre el cacique Brabo, y la casa del cacique Mayupilquia, y con cualquier otro indio de la reducciòn". [ [40]] (The peace made with the spaniards include also the Pampa Indians of Nuestra señora de la Concepcion as vassals of the king. Therefore, past differences should be forgotten)
Trasamundo, you have not answered yet to this: If Beleato description didn't want to use the word "hasta" in the sense of continual possesion, then why didn't he used Hasta Puerto Deseado??. It would have been logical, because Puerto Deseado was the southernmost Spanish possesion in the Patagonia.
Trasamundo, if the amerindians sweared loyalty to the king of Spain, then why do you insist in that Spain had no influence at all in the area? I know that it is difficult to answer this questions, because your position is becoming more and more difficult to mantain. I think that it doesn't matter how many sources I get, you will never change your mind because that would mean admiting that your map is wrong to you. Admit that Spain had serious influence over natives and Europeans in the area. The sources state it.
Trasamundo, if other Europeans were not capable to settle the zone (Spanish managed to frighten the English as you said) due to Spanish influence, then why do you continue denying Spanish influnce in the area?
Even if you don't change your mind and agree to change the map, other people will come and will continuously begin the same discussion, because the sources are there to support it, and you are ignoring them.
I suggest introducing a light red colour to the zones were Spanish had considerable influence, with de jure rule over natives and de facto rule over Europeans. That would mean that some regions in north america will change from dark red to light red improving the map precission. My suggestion will certainly resolve the dispute, improve the map, and it is supported by sources. I can't find the reason why you would not like to do it, as I said, maybe its because you take map issue as personal. Fireinthegol ( talk) 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The Swiss never signed a treaty swearing loyalty to the king of France. If they had done so, be sure that Swizterland would be depicted as a client state of France in the maps. You can be sceptic about the content of treaties, but their legal value is important under international law. That treaty included subordination, no matter the interpretations you may do. When Napoleon invaded Spain, Spanish were not really working for France, they were fighting against French, but Spain was effectively a client state of France, because Jose Bonaparte was the official King. The same happens here, Mapuches officially declared loyalty to the Spanish king, no matter if some Mapuches didn't because the official treaties is what count, there is no possible interpretation.
Can you look for a source that says that Puerto Deseado was administrated directly by Madrid? if not, your argument makes no sense at all.
Btw I think that if Pfly is neutral, I am in favour and IANVS is in favour, then we are 2 against 1. You cannot take a dictatorial stance in the issue.
Fireinthegol ( talk) 05:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, try to edit when you can bring a good argument like I did. And do not compare me to Cosialscastells, and do not judge my edits as rambling. Your edit is pure original research, offensive and completely useless. Go to British empire to depict all the world as British and leave this alone. Fireinthegol ( talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, following on the last section: Could you restate what it is you would like to see, Fireinthegol? After so much talk it is hard to tell exactly! Is it that you'd like the map to be red along the coast south of Río de la Plata to and including the Valdes Peninsula? I can't quite tell where the settlement of San José was, but Bahía de San José is on the north side of the narrow "neck" of the Valdes Peninsula. Is this right? By "coast" do you mean just a thin strip following the coast, or something extending farther inland? Am I right to assume you are arguing that this coastal reach between Río de la Plata and Valdes Peninsula was under Spanish control, rule, etc? I can't quite tell if you are saying it was under Spanish control or Mapuche control, with the Mapuche considered incorporated into the Spanish Empire. Pfly ( talk) 06:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I think this map should be the main of the empire
Fireinthegol ( talk) 20:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that is the one that should be, as the mapuches and indios pampas sweared loyalty to the king of Spain but mantained autonomy, and the sioux north also had autonomy, even being subjects of the king. Fireinthegol ( talk) 08:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This new map is in any case better than the current one, which is a joke. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.74.199 ( talk) 15:58, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why Patagonia doesn't count as Spanish, but the whole western United States does. Did Spain really have any kind of effective control over Utah and Colorado (or Minnesota and Iowa) beyond what it had in Patagonia? john k ( talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I was researching the Patagonia questions and reading (with google translate helping my very poor Spanish) the Spanish Wikipedia page/section Organización militar del Virreinato del Río de la Plata (section:) Comandancia de Marina del Río de la Plata. It seems to say that in 1802 the fleet included Corbeta Descubierta and Corbeta Atrevida, both of 20 cañones. Is it possible that these were the Descubierta and Atrevida of Alessandro Malaspina? Maybe they were simply named in honor of Malaspina's corvettes. I've researched Malaspina's voyage and his corvettes quite a bit--and just recently created the page about them. I had trouble finding out what happened to the ships after Malaspina returned to Spain in 1794. Both were only 5 years old and apparently well built. They must have been put to some use after 1794, right? I tried to find info about their fate after 1794 but got nowhere. It is possible they ended up in the Río de la Plata fleet? Or, to ask a different way, might there be Spanish sources with info about their post-1794 fate? My ability to find (and read!) Spanish sources is not good. So I post here knowing some of you read this page and are good with Spanish sources and research. Any ideas? Thanks. Pfly ( talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
As many editors have indicated, the current multi-colored map is poor and confusing. It does not show the territories of the Spanish empire with clarity or objectivity. The use of so many colors is inaccurate and unclear. It seems to portray many different empires instead of one. All other colonial empire maps in Wikipedia use one or two colors, not seven or eight: see the British, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Russian, and Italian empires. To solve this for once and for all I propose the red and pink map suggested earlier [46]. 83.50.254.101 ( talk) 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
What irks me about both maps is the completely ridiculous double standard between Spanish claimed territories in Patagonia (not colored in at all!) and Spanish claimed territories in western North America (completely colored in!). Given that there were apparently Spanish settlements along the eastern coast of Patagonia, it seems almost certain there are territories along the Patagonian coast that were under far more effective Spanish control than North Dakota ever was. I don't see any basis for treating "Indians in the northern plains states and great basin who had probably never seen a Spanish person ever" as unproblematic Spanish subjects while "Indians in Patagonia who lived within a few miles of a Spanish fort" are unproblematically not Spanish subjects. 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the issue at stake here is the use of many colors on the empire map. We can discuss the issue of fronteirs in Patagonia and North America, later. The question is that the Spanish Empire is the only European colonial empire in Wikipedia which is shown with multiple colors depending on when they were lost or transferred. This is absurd, not to say ridiculous or even biased. I suggest we solve this before discussing the actual extent of the empire. JCRB ( talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
So the editors of the Spanish Empire are geniuses, and the editors of all the other articles are dumb? Wrong. The exception is this map. This is the odd one out. And don't tell me the history of other empires was "less complicated" than that of the Spanish Empire. JCRB ( talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with multiple colors on the map. It makes little sense to have a map where Spanish Morocco (acquired 1912) is the same color as territories lost in the early nineteenth century. That being said, I do wonder if it might not be better to a) have the main map show the Spanish Empire in 1800 or so, when it was at its greatest territorial extent; and b) have a series of other maps in the article that show the empire's extent at other times. john k ( talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the time that has been spent arguing about the bloody map was spent on improving the article we'd have Wikipedia7s finest article on our hands. Just try reading it, top to bottom - it's awful. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, nobody is trying to justify anything behind a "smokescreen" (as you call it) of what is clearly a reasonable argument: that most other colonial empire maps have one or two colors (not five or six) and that the use of many colors seems to portray different nations or empires instead of ONE. Many editors have shown their disagreement with this multi-colored map which you keep pushing for. This argument has been explained ad nauseam here, and the links to eight different colonial maps with only one (maximum two) colors, have also been produced repeatedly.
As for the maps you have shown with more than two colors, they are clearly not relevant to the point. First, they are not the main map used in an empire article. For the main maps of the empires you mention, see: the German Empire, the German Colonial Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, all with one color. See also the Roman Empire (one color), the Muslim conquests (three colors), the Kingdom of Prussia (one color), the Athenian Empire (two colors), the Macedonian Empire (one color) and the Byzantine Empire (one color). See also the Crown of Aragon (one color), the Thai Empire (one color) and the Japanese Empire (two colors). Second, some of them are not even "empire maps". The colors used in this German map [55] do not reflect different territorial extents, but the subnational units that made up the empire. As for the map titled "Pertes territorial allemagne" [56] meaning "Territorial losses of Germany" this has nothing to do with the issue at stake, ie. imperial maps.
You have really gone out of your way to find strange maps with more than three colors to prove that the use of many colors is "common". Frankly, that's a pretty weak point. Your examples are obvious exceptions to the general rule of using one or two colors. In other cases your examples are not even empire maps. To conclude, I suggest the possibility of using this multi-colored map at a later stage in the article, if anything. As for the main map, the best option, as User:John K suggested, is one that shows the greatest territorial extent of the Spanish Empire (circa 1800). If more than one color is used, these should be of a similar tone (ie. yellow, orange and brown) like in the Muslim Conquests map with three colors. Other maps with other extents of the empire can be placed throughout the article that explain the different territorial changes. JCRB ( talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Ok, let's solve this once and for all. Let's vote. Administrator here should announce a voting poll.-- Infinauta ( talk) 19:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why the hell is Argentina not included in the map of the Spanish Empire? Argentina is one of the most important Spanish ex-colonies and it's not even included in the map because some people here claim that 'it didn't officialy belong to Spain'. Isn't the fact that Argentineans today speak Spanish and that many of them actually descend from Spaniards reason enough?
And why make a map depicting the period of time in which Spain LOST the colonies, who cares about that. Following that logic, why not say when the territories were WON and not lost?
And I agree that the different colors make it seem like the map is about different empires instead of just one.
The map is PRO-BRITISH empire propaganda bullshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 ( talk) 23:28, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Most of the IP edits of this article since September 1 have been vandalism. There is also a long-time edit warrior on the subject of maps who constantly shows up here with different IPs. This is presumably one of his edits. (See the protection log for previous history of the map war). Is it time to restore semiprotection? EdJohnston ( talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not vandalism to say the truth, and the truth is that the map is propagandistic and wrong, and it's done on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 ( talk) 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just go and see which map is on the actual Spanish page of the Spanish Empire and oh surprise it's not the multi-colored one, because the editors of that page know it's fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 ( talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Philip I was king of england. I'd put England like spanish colonia too. spurce: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_II_of_Spain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_of_England —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.106.207.55 ( talk) 12:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
I have readded the map for Spanish America in 1620. It was removed because "Spanish American Kingdoms??-furthermore inaccurate: conquest of Sonora began c.1630, Baja California c.1680, and Nuevo Santander in the 18th century" These comments are themselves incorrect. The region of New Mexico was explored as early as the 1540s and permanent settlements established by the end of the 16th century. While it is true that Sonora was largely barren of Spanish settlement, it was still claimed by Spain. The same is true of both Baja California which was explored as early as the 1540s and Nuevo Santander which had been explored by 1600. Finally, the title is correct. The Spanish did not call their oversea possessions colonies. They used the term "reino" meaning kingdom. The proper title for New Spain was the Kingdom of New Spain. the term viceroyalty is an English phrase applied because the highest secular official of the kingdom was a viceroy. I am more than happy to adjust the map for possible inaccuracies but it is a good depiction of the extent of Spanish claims ca. 1620. Moreover, this map corresponds to the boundaries shown in other published sources. Lockhart, James; Schwartz, Stuart (1983). Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America And Brazil. Cambridge University Press. p. 255. Grin20 ( talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm wondering if this is really a good heading for this time period. If a reading is skimming through the piece, they may assume that the Spanish Empire had no flaws during this time, especially if they had already read the article about Spain's Golden Age. This was also a time where the Spanish had to deal with the realization that they had their own agency and in some cases, they could not rely on God to take care of them. Many would argue that after the Armada was defeated by the English, Spain went into a decline. Not only did they lose the prestige that they had once carried, but from this time on, they had stretched their resources so far, that it was about to snap and their empire would soon shrink. Before too long the Portuguese would disappear as well as colonies in the Americas. Spartemis ( talk) 06:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
I would completely agree with you when it comes to the heading. After the defeat of the Spanish armada people became much more secular. Although the armada was not destroyed people began to understand that the actions of humans had a much greater effect than divine intervention would. This change to thought had a lot of Spain rethinking its beliefs and if God supported Spain's cause or not. However, I think that to say Spain was in decline would be untrue. It's true that Spain was going through a time of many problems, but that doesn't mean that it was in decline. A period of adaptation would be a better way to describe this time in Spain's life. All countries have problems at one point and to say that Spain was declining might be overstating matters. Voitik2 ( talk) 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Mexico-city-cathedral.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 2 August 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
I propose that a new map should be found for the main map image for the article. I propose this because it includes "territories of the Iberian Union". The Iberian Union was a personal union, not an official unification of the two kingdoms. This being said, the Portuguese territory and her colonies were never part of the Spanish empire, they were the Portuguese empire. They both shared a king, for a time, but that did not make the Portuguese empire a part of the Spanish empire, but they were run side-by-side. The current map is misleading. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás ( talk) 12:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
So what is your answer now?
Cristiano Tomás (
talk)
05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree?
Cristiano Tomás (
talk)
06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what those arguments could have been but it is ridiculous to have such a colorful map for the introduction, no offense. That degree of detail must go somewhere else in the article. See the British Empire map, the Portuguese empire map, the French empire map, etcetera etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 ( talk) 09:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism. The flag of spanish armies commonly used the coats-of-arms of the "king" or the "place", not the Burgundy cross flag alone. Much more important, ¡Spanish empire is not an Army or military unit!.-- Santos30 ( talk) 10:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 15:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
You are mistaken Trasamundo. The Flag of Castile and León is for the Kingdom (territory), not for the king (person). Some of the King's blazon have a cross of Burgundy, but cross of Burgundy never appear in the flag of the Castile. Burgundy is a flag of military units, King's blazon or Carlism.
You put a several references to publications but any of this talk about a flag of Spanish empire. The last talk about vessels, Louisiana and a kings's blazon. But any of your references say nothing about a flag of Spanish Empire. And who say that "other areas had more important" -than Americas and Spanish East Indies-?, who? you?. Your other references in spanish do not demonstrate that you say in english (neither in spanish). Put a published source, not your ideas. Citation needed: burgundy was a flag of Spanish empire or something, clear. Or delete the flag of Carlism, Tercio or King's blazon.-- Santos30 ( talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The European and Mediterranean territories had their role within the empire, but the most important territory was Castile.
There are not a published source about Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This discussion make me see that your map Trasamundo is wrong too: where are the kingdoms of Spain in your map?!.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
After a long discussion about your original research of Burgundy flag you Trasamundo can not give a published source with citation for Spanish Empire. I give very clear citation and picture for Spanish Empire flag:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 23:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Spanish empire is not by any european title because The kings of Spain on 1556 lost the title of Emperor ( Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor). But we have a clear evidence that flag of Castile-Leon is the spanish flag of Age of Discovery, the flag of Spanish empire from Americas to Philipinas. All the flags of spanish conquerors and explorers have the same simbol of the kingdom Castile-Leon alone, a simbol of the Kings of Spain that could be alone in their flags. Furthermore, the simbol of Castile-Leon alone is the first national spanish flag.
For the contrary, there are not any evidence to use the cross of burgundy alone for Spanish Empire. Cross of Burgundy is a militar blazon to add for the flags of spanish military units or the flags of the kings. But this flags have others simbols: personal (as Austrias, Bourbons), or cities (as Castile, Aragon), armies, etc. It is rare the cross of Burgundy alone in Spanish flags. Cross of Burgundy alone is a simbol of Carlism, and a simbol in Francoist Spain, and, very important, a simbol of Nazi people of ( SS organization).
We can not use military or fascist simbol (cross burgundy alone) as a flag for Spanish empire. You Trasamundo, along this discussion can not give a published source with citation for Spanish empire. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, but I think it is better the simbol of Castile-Leon, because it was: the main Kingdom of Spain, the kingdoms of Americas and Asia, and the first national flag of Spain.
I propose Wikipedia:Third opinion.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo your map is wrong too: your map does not show the kingdoms of Spain.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Señala Rodríguez Lizcano que las banderas que prevalecen en España son las siguientes: siglos XV y XVI: blanca y Cruz Roja de San Andrés; siglo XVII, primera mitad: rojas; siglo XVII, segunda mitad: colores diversos y Cruz de Borgoña; siglo XVIII: blancas con la Cruz de Borgoña. |
Lizcano Rodriguez notes that prevailing in Spain flags are: XV and XVI centuries: White and Red Cross of St. Andrew, XVII century, first half: red; XVII century, second half: different colors and Cross of Burgundy; XVIII century: white with the Cross of Burgundy. |
By defintion in the introduction: The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español) comprised territories and colonies administered by Spain in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. It originated during the Age of Exploration and was one of the first global empires. Then, Spanish empire is not the Naval, Army, or fortification or any military unit of Spain. Again and again, the "Spanish empire" needs a flag, and by definition it is the territories and colonies (those include the kingdoms of Spain missing in Trasamundo's map). Spanish empire is not the idea of Trasamundo: "Spanish power against their opponents" (with the military flag of cross of burgundy). -- Santos30 ( talk) 10:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contributions Jaontiveros and I am glad because in this case we agree. As it has been said by Jaontiveros and myself the first national flag of Spain was established in 1843.
The only thing that supports the use of quartering of castles and lions is simply a particular belief based on a simple deduction: as the new world was included to the Crown of Castile then the flag of the Spanish empire is the kingdom of Castile.
Beyond the use in particular times and places from a variety of royal emblems, after all the Spanish empire also included European domains not inclued in the crown of Castile, which were the center of Spanish politics for two centuries as it is dealed with extensively in the article, while was left to his fate the defense of the American territories, as I quoted above.
While all that is shown is a hodgepodge of deductions about the quartering of castles and lions, Jaontiveros and myself have shown the relevance of the cross of burgundy that fully justify their inclusion and permanence in the infobox. The infobox country does not require that be included official emblems. Taking as an example the article France, there it appears an unofficial emblem as a substitute of the coat of arms. There is no official emblem for the country or the Republic of France, but the emblem that appears in the article is to identify France with respect to other nations, and this is equivalent to the cross of Burgundy and the Spanish empire. And since the Spanish empire as such, was not a official entity with more reason there isn't any obligation to employ an official emblem, but one emblem that had significance for its identificative use. Despite taking an symbol to represent and identify the French Republic without being official, in the article of France has not been any kind of discussion about it. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, does not rule here because the only doubt is a hodgepodge of beliefs and personal deductions. Trasamundo ( talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo the doubt is because there are not any published source for use the carlist flag in Spanish Empire.
Facts:
Jaontiveros, not only the main territories, the most important events and personalities of Spanish Empire was under flags of Castile-Lion: Christopher Columbus, Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Hernán Cortés, Francisco Pizarro, Ferdinand Magellan, Miguel López de Legazpi. [123] The Spanish Armada fight under the flags of Castile-Lion on 1588 in Europe. [124] [125].
No reason to put a flag of Carlism or Francoist Spain (Red cross burgundy in a white flag) in this article. Cross of Burgundy element must to be with other elements to be a historic flag. Other color for the flag and other elements (the main element of Spain is Castile-Lion). -- Santos30 ( talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I propose again Wikipedia:Third opinion for this problems:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 01:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
There are other options to put cross of Burgundy without fascist flag:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 02:56, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 00:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Seeing that this discussion does not lead anywhere, I am going to clarify the matter:
Although at no time it hs been said that the flag of the cross of Burgundy is the flag of the Spanish empire, simply that it was the most representative and identificative of the Spanish Empire, however, Santos30 couldn't care less what it has been said, and he continues to put words into someone else's mouth.
It has been demonstrated its character as a Spanish symbol as in [141] [142] [143] [144]. It has been demonstrated its use both during the time of the Hapsburg and the Bourbon as most prominently, common, ordinary standard. Also its use over the Spanish former dominions. Therefore has been proved its relevance for the article of the Spanish Empire. This relevance is recognized today, so the historian Juan Miguel Zunzunegui writes in his historical novel: [145] un estandarte de la cruz de Borgoña, escudo del imperio español
Despite the references mainly contributed by Jaontiveros which show that the Cross of Burgundy could show alone. [146] had long featured a red raguly saltire cross on a white blackground, Santos30 couldn't care less and he'll say that it had to have something else, but coming from someone that approved a flag of the eighteenth century as the standard of Charles V or says that the first national flag of Spain dates since 1785 when at that time only changed the naval flag... and of course it was a Carlist symbol.
Santos30 by no means has demonstrated that the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period extended for ever and ever. Santos30 creates an original research through of the deduction that if the overseas territory were included in the crown of Castile is able to extend the symbols simply on the basis that the explorers and conquerors used a standard of the kingdom, and from there it invents its use for centuries, but the Spanish empire was not only the discovery and conquest, mantaining a belief that the symbols used in this period could be kept for ever and ever at any time and place is a naive but invalid deduction; but also, whereas it has been demonstrated the use of the cross of Burgundy for centuries, Santos30 has not demonstrated anything about the quartering of castles and lions, not as abbreviated armoirial of the king, but as standard the kingdom that was used in America, in spite of the laws of the Indies did not mention it and the only mentioned is the royal standard. And secondly it also fails because the explorers and conquerors only used the royal standard, as Balboa, Magellan Cortés Columbus... Even the reference shown by Santos30 to evidence the flag of Castille and Leon by Spanish Armada only mentions the royal standard [147], and also Se hizo por entonces para el Parlamento un juego de tapices que representaba varios episodios de la armada: John Pine los reprodujo en grabado y en muchos galeones españoles se ve la bandera blanca con la cruz de Borgoña. I suppose that Santos30 must have a real mess to understand that it was the royal standard. I said above that but throughout the centuries the king's banner varied with the kings, and they existed variants, complete and abbreviated, and relating to this an user have expressed the same concern on his talk page [148]
I know that santos30 will say I'm wrong, and although he still has not demonstrated the use the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period throughout the centuries, not as abbreviated arms of the king, but as standard the kingdom, Santos30 takes it for granted, verifiability must be something that Santos30 requires for others but not for himself. But fact that los reinos de Indias se incorporan a la corona, no al reino de Castilla [149] nullifies completely the invented claim of Santos30 to extend automatically that standard of kingdom wherever.
Yet despite the political weight of the Crown of Castile, the article is not called Castilian empire, but Spanish empire, simply because it covers a space larger than the crown of Castile. If the Crown of Castile had more weight does not mean that historical events that occurred in the Spanish empire was spread by many different contexts, even with bigger political interest for ruling authorities, and outside the geographical area of the crown of Castile, but not the Spanish empire.
During a historical period of several centuries there was a representative emblem along the same, which was the cross of Burgundy as has been mentioned by Jaontiveros and myself, and certainly the infobox does not prevent to place it as an representative emblem. There was the administrative entity of the Spanish empire, so it is not able to draw at all costs an official flag of an entity that was not official. The emblem of the cross of Burgundy can be used by its representative and identificative character, in the same way as the French national emblem is not the official emblem of the country but it is used as such. The military nature of the cross of Burgundy symbol is perfectly feasible for the infobox not due to be military but for being representative, and indeed the Roman aquila appears in the infobox of the article Roman Empire and it is a military symbol of the Roman legions.
Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page. [150] Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?. Trasamundo ( talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
We can put spanish symbol of cross of Burgundy here in Spanish empire ( Trasamundo consensus), maybe better with the first spanish flag 1785 to avoidance any doubt, but not the white flag of carlism or other Fascist or Nazi symbols. Sorry no.-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Some points to make:
My position is that the Cross of Burgundy flag (the rectangled one) should be brought back into the articles from which they were removed by Santos. Regards.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 04:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 12:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC) See diferences:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 14:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)