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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I've fully protected the page for 24 hours because of the edit warring today. Please continue to discuss proposed changes here or follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This time for a week. Please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.-- Chaser ( talk) 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Spanish Empire is an important article, but the introduction currently breaches the general guidance for Lede length - see Lede Length for more info. It is supposed to be four paras for an article of this length and right now the article intro has five paragraphs, some of which are very long and could probably be better synopsised. I would suggest that paragraphs four and five could be shortened and merged; paragraphs one and two could be shorter, particularly parts of para one which are really about the history of Spain itself and are substantially covered in the article text. Any thoughts welcomed. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC) hi this is lame..:D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.157.215 ( talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Another problem in introduction is the wrong map without kingdoms of Spanish Empire. You can see the biased data of the territory of Crown of Castile missing in the Trasamundo map. People can not understand the Spanish Empire without this basic information. The ABC to understand.
-- Santos30 ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I request your Promise ¿Yes or not? -- Santos30 ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Wikipedia in Spanish
[3]
[4] due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Wikipedia in Spanish, arrives to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.
But no matter what I say. I know that the sockpuppet Santos30 will ignore everything and will enter edit warring to remove the term of Spain although wikipedia policy prevents doing that, and will put the linking to the crown of Castile wherever and however without taking into account either the context or meaning of the phrases, all these show their malicious intentions. Trasamundo ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not here to bear a childish behaviour. The claims of Santos30 to alter the text of this article with consensus since several yeaars, to put additions which deny the existence of Spain based on the specific fact that Indies was incorporated administratively to the Crown of Castile are simply the original research, as biased.
The existing bibliography at least in English language use the term Spain, the rule of Spain, Spanish state, Spanish territories... as an example here [8] [9] [10] Since the bibliography widely uses the term Spain, the article and the map, must, and indeed, agree with the bibliography.
Despite is included in the article that Indies was incorporated to the Crown of Castile, which nobody has denied, with the same references as Santos30 has provided, Santos30 continues to give to understand this information is not included, and he continues with this discussion and he continues to try to impose that same repeated references by force again and again. Someone might think that the aim of Santos30 is to inform, but no, that's not a reason to include these references by force, because such information and references are already included in the article. His purpose is to illustrate a point, that Spain did not exist, that is his particular purpose. I know which will be his answer, because the fact of the wording of the article must be according to English-language reference works about the Spanish empire, for him, Santos30, is to have obsession with eternal Spain.
The same situation occurs with the independence of America ( [11]It is not only the intensity of the internal divisions and the obstinacy of metropolitan Spain in refusing to relinquish it tight grasp on its empire which explain the lenght and ferocity of the wars of independence). While it is feasible within the article to indicate the various causes of independence (including the constitution of 1812) because that would be neutral, however, Santos30 is not interested in completing the article with neutral information, he wants to put in the lead section a single cause in the constitution of 1812 in order to illustrate the point of nonexistence of Spain.
But Santos30 does not care about wikipedia policy, he does not mind that in wikipedia in English a neutral and encyclopedic article has to be according to English-language reference works, he does not mind if the wording in the articles is encyclopedic and for general interest. He just wants this article as an essay to support their particular view based on taking isolated sentences here and there. So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.
The aim of Santos30 is not to insert the information that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile, because that information is already included, but his interest is simply to deny the existence of Spain, he could not care less the bibliography in English or the purpose of this article is not to define Spain. His strategy of including at all costs his particular aim by means of facts over a text with a previous consensus since several years, has caused edit wars, this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia. I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia trying to place his viewpoints again and again over a text with a previous consensus, so he will recommence another edit war and the article will be blocked again, but the wikipedia policy establishes that Santos30 cannot alter the pre-existing article without consensus, and although I have agreed to keep some of the contributions of Santos30, certainly all that he has previously indicated has made that I confirmed my total rejection of the other part of his contributions, to which I have given their respective and appropriate explanation, what Santos30 is not interested in understanding. Trasamundo ( talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Santos30 will think that he is writing to Wikipedia.en. And you Trasamundo must stop your uncivil behavior.
About the Map:
About Americas and Castile:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo do not delete references. [42]
As Spanish Empire is a dynastic Union your map with "Spain as today" must be changed to Aragon and Castile.-- Santos30 ( talk) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Title EDIT. for clarify the talk-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Problems with confusing Colors:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be mentioned! TODO Bazuz ( talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Anti-Spanish propaganda was started in the 16th century when Spain was at its height of political power, by propagandists from rival European powers, namely the Protestant countries of England and the Netherlands, as a means to morally disqualify the country and its Spanish people. The Black Legend particularly exaggerates the extent of the activities of the Inquisition, or the treatment of American indigenous subjects in the territories of the Spanish Empire, and non-Catholics such as Protestants and Jews in its European territories. ( Encyclopedia Britannica entry "Black Legend")
How is it possible that in an article about the Spanish Empire was no mention of the Black Legend? -- Bashevis6920 ( talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sánchez Prieto, Ana Belén (2004) (in Spanish). La intitulación diplomática de los Reyes Católicos: un programa político y una lección de historia. Reference 58 say citation: "Y por lo tanto ha de entenderse que la mención a Fernando se hacía en cuanto rey de Castilla en virtud de la Concordia de Segovia, y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte."
It is not the same: "with his death" vs "after his death" when? in 1519? as Trasamundo POV? [50]-- Santos30 ( talk) 14:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe better translation than "with his death" for "a su muerte" is "at the moment of his death". The Bibliography is totally clear to indicate that Indias was joins to Crown of Castile at the moment of treaty with Philip (1506), and returns again at the moment of death of Ferdinand (1516) once and for all. Not with Charles after beginning 1519.-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I will revert you, except your grammar correction that is better. Or not because is slightly worst: upon his death nonspecific the moment same Wordreference source.-- Santos30 ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If "consensus" was wrong must to change. It is not logical expand your mistake as a bubble in all the maps of Wikipedia. Discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed, for example Cuba. It is not the same "De Jure" as Balboa and Pacific Ocean. Who disputed to Balboa? A lots of states: Portugal, UK, Netherlands, etc. Not logically in the year of 1513, that deserves no comment. A little of common sense Trasamundo please.
-- Santos30 ( talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The map showing the territorial extension of the empire should not include Portuguese possessions because even during the Iberian Union, both empires were kept separate. Califate123! ( talk) 09:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
http://aglobalworld.com/holidays-around-the-world/portugal-restoration-independence/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 ( talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This is completely untrue. The Ottoman were basically Mediterranean pirates. And the battle of Lepanto wiped them all out. They never recovered since, because nowadays we associate muslims with camels, but not with war ships (ironic, but it's still true). In fact the Spanish ruled only after the battle of Lepanto over the hole Mediterranean sea, and not before as you write. And beside that they ruled over most of South America, that's when English piracy grew very popular. I'm not saying that queen Elisabeth was a pirate queen, but almost since Francis Drake was a pirate. I know that Britsmen hate Spain, but that's no reason for these inaccuracies in the English Wikipedia. Because after all it was the British who worked together with the Ottoman Empire in a guerilla war on sea against the Spanish kingdom. Still it was finally France who crushed Spain (yeah, that Louis XIII-guy who nobody seems to like nowadays...) and not the UK. -- 178.197.228.81 ( talk) 23:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
World Without End: The Global Empire of Philip II. By Hugh Thomas
Here is an article: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21606735-illuminating-defence-way-spain-expanded-its-reach-across-americas-border — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 ( talk) 00:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The title “Treaty of Alcáçovas and the first colonial war” is more correct and accurate than the previous “Early Portuguese-Spanish Conflicts over territory outside the Iberian Peninsula”. The naval war of 1475-79 was much more than a “conflict” and involved colonies, islands, the west African coast, Atlantic supremacy and the monopoly of gold and slaves (besides ivory and pepper). It was really a colonial war among modern European powers. The first one.
Alcáçovas -the treaty that finished this war- also represented the first sharing of the known world.
“Territory outside the Iberian Peninsula” is too vague.
As British historian Sir Peter Russel wrote: «putting on one side the skirmishes which regularly took place in the Canaries between castilians and Portuguese from 1425 onwards, this 1475-79 war was the earliest colonial war between European powers.» (cited in History in Africa, vol. 17, African Studies Association, 1990, p. 116). Also historian Herman L. Bennet, commenting the book of John William Blake: «…Europeans in West Africa, 1450-1560 … illustrate the nature and scope of Portuguese enterprise in West Africa, the abortive attempt of Castilians to create an empire there and…» (Africans in Colonial Mexico, 2005, p. 254). There can be no doubt about the purpose of the Catholic Kings to build an empire in Africa at the expense of the Portuguese: «After some preliminary skirmishing a regular war at sea broke out in 1475, when Isabella of Castile … ordered her subjects to wrest what they could of the spoils of Africa from their neighbours. The Portuguese emerged the winners in the murderous hostilities that ensued, and by the…» (John Ewbank M. White in Cortés and the downfall of the Aztec Empire, 1971, p. 39).
As for the colonial nature of the Treaty of Alcáçovas (which finished this war), see Peter Padfield: «Exploration stopped … as war broke out between Portugal and Castile, and the sporadic actions between Portuguese vessels and increasing number of Spanish intruders on the West African coast flared up into regular operations concerned with the seizure of bases in the Canaries [and in Ceuta, Morocco, as well as in the Cape Verde islands] and the control of the Guinea trade. The Portuguese proved more than a match for their opponents at sea, and after four years of savage fighting the Treaty of Alcaçovas, while allowing the Spanish their existing colonies in the Canaries, confirmed the Portuguese in the African monopoly … this was the first of a long series of European treaties concerned with colonies and trading spheres. » (Tide of Empires, 1481-1654, 1979, p. 26).
Hispanicultur ( talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And btw the chronological order of the article is completely rubbish, too. -- 178.197.228.81 ( talk) 00:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Habsburg Dynastic territories located in Holy Roman Empire were not part of the Spanish Empire. You confused the term of Personal union and Colony. -- Kirglach ( talk) 12:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
New Spain conquered Fort St. Joseph in present-day Michigan in a 1781 Expedition. It's present-day location, the City of Niles, calls itself the City of Four Flags in reference to all the countries that once ruled it: France, Britain, Spain, and America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.168.114 ( talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC8A:8720:703A:8402:7515:70BD ( talk)
The Spanish Empire was a bit bigger than what is shown, leading to misinformation. For starters, the Patagonia was considered spanish territory from the get go, with many posts and expeditions there all the time. Also, in the southern united states, Spain had territory as far as Georgia. Once again, around Oregon and Washington and even a little bit of territory in Canada. They had a lot of interest in this northwestern pacific region and their expeditions reached as far as Alaska. 2001:1388:103:519B:754F:2491:1A2F:568D ( talk) 20:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The topic of slaves and slavery is found in this article but only between the lines. While the Spanish Empire was built upon the shoulders of enslaved Americans and Africans, coerced workers who were indispensable for sustaining the empire, there is no section here explaining its importance. I plead here the case for redressing this omission.
It was Spain (it was not called Spain, when all this tragedy began, though) the first to enslaved indigenous people in the Americas. Ask Bartolomé de las Casas. It was Spain who brought the first enslaved Africans to Hispaniola, and then to other parts of the Americas. It was Spain who set the foundation of modern racism with its religious ( inquisitorial) concept of Limpieza de Sangre, and the castas, systems of thought that sustained the Spanish rule over a majority of non-Europeans and non-Whites. Etc. Etc. Thanks. 71.63.91.85 ( talk) 07:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please participate in RfC on this page. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
[[Link to some other page#RfC thread|RfC on this page]]
". Derp. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
05:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Hello. I believe that the Spanish empire should have a map of JUST the Spanish empire without the claimed territories, Habsburg dominions, and Dynastic unions. My image I've posted earlier is just that. The image is simpler to understand and decently accurate. The map that JavierNF96 posted is inaccurate in some areas, and is too vague in the pink color coding, as it can represent several different meanings. The map that Ruepc posted is much better and more accurate. However in my opinion, it should not be posted as the infobox picture, as it is misleading to what is actually the Spanish empire. An image like Ruepc's should be posted somewhere else in the article, hence it already is in section 2. Please share your thoughts and hopefully we can come up with a resolution. Thanks. Empirecoins ( talk) 21:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This message goes out to 90.94.208.147. Your map you are adding onto the infobox is incorrect. The Spanish Empire did not have possession of the Southern part of what is now Argentina and Chile. This is why Argentina only had this much land at the time of there independence. Also, the Spanish Empire had possession of what is now the Netherlands. See Habsburg Netherlands. This image is also of poor quality. Empirecoins ( talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
And here is yet another map, "SpanishEmpire1790.svg", that cannot be expanded to view the details, added by JavierNF96, who has not joined in the discussion. These unreadable maps are of no use to general readers. Funny how all these maps are being added by editors who refuse to engage in the discussion here. This has become disruptive editing. If you have a problem with the maps, discuss here and stop arguing in edit summaries. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 15:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I've worked on this one if you want to use it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png The 1790 svg map can be expanded using the browser zoom or, if youre in a smartphone, using the "pinch to zoom" gesture. I can make a png version if needed. Honestly the southern tip of South America should be shaded, as it is half of Australia in many New South Wales maps of late 1700s, or the whole Louisiana in 1810 US maps, or the Arctic islands in the 1800s British Canada maps, or Siberia in the Russian empire maps of early 1800s... there are many examples of "claimed but not occupied" territories that are assigned to a certain power, in this case Portugal and Spain agreed to divide South America in the Treaty of Madrid and Treaty of San Ildefonso in a way in which all territories west of that line were assigned to Spain. Many maps do not reflect this and show Patagonia as unclaimed territory because there is an interest of foreign powers in diminishing the sphere of influence of others. For instance, the Amazon basin was not included in Brazil territory as late as 1950 in some USA maps... But the Patagonia was claimed by Spain and recognized by the other South American involved power, which was Portugal. Nagihuin ( talk) 20:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Empirecoins: That's a good question, and I've questioned that to myself many times. Let me explain this Patagonia topic. I myself have doubted many times but after studying many historical maps, I think it should be fully included into Spanish possesions as Louisiana is included in 1810 US maps, for instance:
-What is a fully occupied or effectively occupied territory? I consider that question really tricky to answer properly. For instance, are Arctic Canadian Islands fully occupied by Canada nowadays? What about the Australian Outback? And the Amazon basin in Brazil? When is a territory considered effectively occupied? There are territories even in our modern nation states which aren't still fully charted, with tribes discovered still today, and they're not occupied or settled or explored. Maybe a settlement with buildings means it is fully occupied. But, how much territory do you add in the surroundings? 1km, 10 km, 100 km? 1000km? How do you decide that? Is a road or a pathway built by a power something that qualifies that territory as "effectively occupied"? What about the surroundings of that road? What kind of territory do we need to qualify some land as fully occupied territory? A farm, a desert... is the Algerian desert fully occupied?
Those questions are horrribly difficult to answer. The thing is, we do have maps that do not follow the rule of "shaded area=fully occupy land". And there are plenty of them. For instance, let's see this map of 1788 Australia, when there was only one outpost built in Sydney. But we had nearly half of Australia shaded as part of the British Empire. How is that? We only had a couple of hundred squared meters fully occupied in Sydney!
Take as well into consideration all those maps of early USA like this one I add here. What's up with all that Missisippi basin? Was that fully occupied? Completely not. There were still hundreds of hostile Native American tribes which were not aware of these borders and they fought until their extermination to defend their land in the following decades. The last wars were won in late 1890. Does that mean that the USA maps shouldn't shade the Mississippi basin until 1900? It's shaded as a full American territory (not into statehood, but fully American anyway).
I think the "fully occupied territory" criterion is not only difficult to answer, but also not followed in important historical maps like those. So, what's the solution? There is not a complete solution, but I give you my opinion. My thought is that territories should be shaded as fully integrated in the empire or nation if they were "charted, claimed and recognized by powers capable of projecting force in the area". Although this triad of criteria is not entirely clear either, it may be better than the fully occupied criterion. And that triad of criteria is followed in 1810 USA maps or 1788 Australia maps. So Patagonia was charted, claimed by Spain and recognized by Portugal, the other South American power, in the late 1700s:
1. "There was native resistance". Yes there was. But there were native resistance in the Louisiana territory in the USA, right? Why then it is shaded as integral part of the USA, and Patagonia not part of the Spanish Empire?
2. "There was not settled". That's not right. It was also moderately settled (Carmen de Patagones, San José, Colonia Floridablanca, Puerto Deseado in the coast). Those are more settlements, in number, than Sydney in the 1788 which justifies that half of Australia shaded map.
3. "It was not recognized by foreign powers". That's also contested. Portugal did recognize Spanish rule west of the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 and the Treaty of San Ildefonso in the 1770s line dividing South America between them. Also, Spain didn't recognized the British rule in early 1788 Australia. But those maps of half of Australia shaded in 1788 are still there. The thing is, Spain couldn't seize Australia from the British (Australia was part of the Castilian hemisphere according to Tordesillas treaty, so they claimed it as late as 1790), and in the same way, foreign powers depriving Patagonia in their maps weren't also capable of seizing it. Yes there are some old maps with Patagonia coloured in another color different from the Pampa region. But there are also old maps that show Patagonia included in the Spanish sphere. How many old maps do we need to colour something in a way or another?
Maybe it is better to reserve the lighter shade to "claimed but effectively disputed areas" (instead of simply "claimed lands") with major intrusions and constant operations of foreign powers, like the Portuguese in the Amazon basin in the 1730s (claimed by Spain), which were founding cities and raiding here and there, or the Nootka territory where British and Russian vessels were thriving. But the Patagonian lands were just remote, native governed lands, with no large interventions of foreign major powers, just as the 1810 American Louisiana or the 1788 Australian Outback...
As I said, these are just my opinions after heavy research, but I have had different opinions myself, as you could see it in the earlier versions of the SVG map. Thank you all! Nagihuin ( talk) 20:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Again I attend a war of maps based on subjective impressions and brief comments without showing anything, and also, ignoring the situation prior to the conflict, something that is not allowed in Wikipedia.
Since 2009 this map [59] made by me has been the stable map in this article. This map was drawn up by me, something that has not been mentioned previously, and it was the result of very hard discussions in order to achieve something satisfactory. In 2015 Nagihuin's map [60], based on mine, was added, and this was no problem, in fact I tried to place it in the lead section but it is not allowed due to style. However, I have read several considerations about the map in the infobox without taking into account the situation prior to September 2017. That is, a surrealistic discussion is made as there would have been no map before September 2017, and a well-founded consensus has been ignored by subjective considerations and capricious tastes, without anticipating the risks, and this is very irregular.
Now I am going to indicate briefly why the map [61] that has been present around for years don't have to be changed:
In the first place, my map, being in SVG format, complies with the image policy WP:IUP, something that this map [62] does not do, and therefore my map on having a SVG format takes precedence.
In the second place, it is argued in a sentence that the Portuguese empire was not part of Spanish empire as if the rest of us were ignorant. It is very funny because the opposite (the Portuguese empire was part of Spanish empire) was proved in a contudent and reliable way many years ago, in fact among my many interventions I can take two as an example. [63] [64]
Before this reliable verification, the text of the article was changed, and was made in the lead section in a way that ensured the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in order that in the future the war of editions of that time would not be repeated. I cannot stop smiling to try to finish off to me almost ten years later with a single sentence.
Therefore this map [65] that does not contain the Portuguese territories does not serve for this article, because it does not comply with the content of the article, since the content of the article requires the inclusion of Portugal.
Third, another of the challenges I had to face in creating the map [66] was the way of including Portugal. Once demonstrated that Portugal had to be included, it was necessary to establish the best form. On the one hand the Portuguese users did not want to see their territory colonized by Spain presented on the map, on the other hand Portugal at that time was a domain of the Crown like Sicily, and therefore was no reason to differentiate the color between the Portuguese part and the Castilian-Aragonese-Burgundy part. The best option was to divide the map into historical periods, so, on the one hand the Portuguese would not see their former country subdued and dominated, and on the other, there was respected that Iberian Union was a historical period between other different periods and hereby it was respected to the neutral point of view.
When on 8 September the blocked troll took the unilateral decision to change the map ignoring these issues and trampling on a very elaborate consensus and strongly settled in the Wikipedia policy, to put subjective consideration, then all kinds of disputes that were judicious solved in the past, arose, and this is not a coincidence. Leave alone this map to that he attends both to the Portuguese identity and to the reality of the domains of the monarch at that time. Trasamundo ( talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Spanish Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
On further inspection of this map, I have to agree with TompaDompa that it is of little use. I have tried expanding it and even downloading the source file, but it appears unreadable to me. Is there a way to view it so the text is legible? If not it should be removed. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 22:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree this map is of little use but the Portuguese territories are there from the Iberian Union. Bobbbcat ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I honestly have worked on the map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg for ages and it has tons of details and information that are not provided in any other map. Just compare it with the others. I think all this work should be shown somewhere in the article, if not in the header, at least in the main text. The map is not intended to be seen from the distance, but to be zoomed in to see all the details, that's the way it is readable. Nagihuin ( talk) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I've created this PNG version which is readable instead of the svg. Check it out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png Nagihuin ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex, check this out, tell me if you read it well. I've enlarged the scale:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg
We could use this map which is hundreds of times more detailed.
Nagihuin (
talk)
21:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There have been three different maps added/removed recently, sometimes with no edit summary, sometimes arguing in summaries. Could we please have a discussion over the map to reach some consensus? Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
So the current map seems to be suggesting that in 1790 the Seventeen Provinces and the Kingdom of Sicily were still part of the Spanish Empire. I would say that is incorrect. Dragon2K ( talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You are free to use that map of mine, or also this one which is more complete: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg if you want to use it in the header, just removing or simplifying some text if needed.
I've drawn them both, I'm open to discussion. Nagihuin ( talk) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I've created this PNG version which is readable instead of the svg. Check it out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png Nagihuin ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex, check this out, tell me if you read it well. I've enlarged the scale: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg We could use this map which is hundreds of times more detailed. 77.228.43.120 ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
the Spanish empire in the time of Felipe II also had in its possession the territories of the Portuguese empire. The map needs to be modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.226.176 ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please review WP policy on the lead section and especially the opening paragraph, as recent additions are inappropriate, as well as making questionable claims. It equates the Kingdom of Castile with the empire, though the link provided states the kingdom ended in 1230 (and the third paragraph of the lead already discusses this more clearly). Going into its income source in the second sentence is undue weight, as is the tangent on religion. The previous version of the lead was concise, followed WP:LEAD, and was stable for at least a couple of years. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. My apologies for causing some editors distress or confusion with my edits. I do want the article to be clear, factual, and grounded in sources. I can turn my attention to expanding the text in the main article so that it matches more closely to text I recently added the lead. As a professional historian of Spanish America and the Atlantic world, I see the article on the Spanish Empire as extremely important for understanding world history as well as for understanding how colonial Spanish America's experience has shaped that region. Spanish America is largely Spanish-speaking, Roman Catholic, and has export-led economies, all legacies of its being part of the Spanish Empire.`My goal as a Wikipedia editor is to improve articles in which I have expertise. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I agree with Laszlo Panaflex, the lead section is an article in itself, and it violates the Manual of Style, which are the rules to try to create some coherence in Wikipedia. Curiously, the previous version was elaborated by me, when on August 1, 2016 I cleared another cumbersome lead section. I really do not understand these ways of proceeding. Nothing in that case, I will have to put the template again. Trasamundo ( talk) 21:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed the lead and will integrate some of the removed text into the article at a later date. I hope that editors who have participated in this discussion will look at the revised lead and assess whether the tag should be removed. For my part, I'll be working on the body of the article and not the lead. Amuseclio ( talk) 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
A sentence in the lead is unclear. It reads: "Under this political configuration, irrespective of the denominations[13] given to the "dynastic union"[14][15] existing from 1580 to 1640, the Portuguese realm kept its own administration and jurisdiction over its territory, as did the other kingdoms and realms ruled by the Spanish Habsburgs.[16]" What specifically does "irrespective of the denominations" mean? This unclear clause has 9 references that aim support it (in reference 13). Reference 13 has the appearance of a single work when reading the text, but when seeing the references themselves they appear to be an example of what Wikipedia describes as Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The citation overkill might be the result of some previous edit war of which I have no knowledge. In the 9 works cited, none has specific page numbers. One listed is Leslie Bethell, ed. The Cambridge History of Latin America, a multi-volume work spanning the colonial to modern eras, making the reference so nonspecific as to be useless for verification.
I recommend an editor clarify what "irrespective of denominations" means and then trim citations to one or two, with specific page numbers, permitting verification of the sources supporting the clarified statement. Obviously one or more editors sees the point (i.e., "irrespective of denominations") as important, so it would be good to have its meaning clear. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
In my view, the section on Audiencias is currently far too detailed for a general article on the Spanish Empire. It does need to be described, since it is a key institution. I have added the link under the subsection heading to the main article, Real Audiencia. I propose moving the detailed discussion on different types of Audiencias and judges to the main article, so that those interested can read further. Amuseclio ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I suggest trimming the discussion on Spain and the American Revolutionary War, leaving the important points, but shifting the details to the separate Wikipedia article on the topic and adding a links between the two articles. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I don't think majority of the information in this subsection fits a general article on the Spanish Empire. I propose eliminating the subsection and then incorporating text on letrados under the Catholic Monarchs into the discussion of organization of empire. I also propose then moving the remaining text to the history section of the Wiki article on Higher Education in Spain. Amuseclio ( talk) 19:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
Hi and I apologise for getting back to you so late Amuseclio! I reverted the edit mainly because you didn't transfer the section to the article on Higher Education in Spain as you said you would. I do also believe that the section is relevant in this article too, as it gives the reader background information on the whole process of educating an almost medieval population in order to run what was, alongside the Portuguese, the first 'colonial empire'. I firmly believe we should not change that section and leave it as it is. You could however, add a section on "letrados" WITHIN the lawyer-bureaucrats section if you consider it to be right. Sorry for the delay of my message and my perhaps slightly violent reversion! Best regards, -- Barbudo Barbudo ( talk) 13:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this section should be more succinct. I would like to move material to History of the Caribbean and/or Spanish colonization of the Americas and have a shorter version of the main points of this section. I think right now it is too detailed for the general Spanish Empire article. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
This
edit request to
Spanish Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change in the Charles II topic the name of the monarch that invaded Spanish Netherlands in the nine years war from Louis XVI to Louis XIV, Louis XIV was king of France until the begining of XVII century not Louis XVI.
In the Nine Years' War (1688–1697) Louis XVI once again invaded the Spanish Netherlands. to In the Nine Years' War (1688–1697) Louis XIV once again invaded the Spanish Netherlands. source - /info/en/?search=Louis_XIV_of_France Sicmundi ( talk) 15:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone got a slightly clearer map of the Empire circa 1700? ie death of Carlos/Charles II. Much appreciated if you can link me to one.
Thanks!
Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
As for example that is called (Even before the British Empire) "the empire in which the sun never sets". You also erased that the Spanish Empire was the foremost global power in 16th and 17th, and whose maximum territorial extension was in the 18th (Specifically in 1790). You have also eliminated that the wealth of the empire was based on the gold extracted from Peru and Mexico.
Why have you eliminated all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.210.236 ( talk) 13:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The image of the map of the Spanish Empire is incomplete because it lacks many large areas of exploration, influence and settlement in which cities and towns were founded by Castilian settlers.
In addition the map is confusing and not very visual, it is difficult to see the letters unless you open the image.
I propose to add a more simplified and complete map. This map is very used by many Wikipedia:
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Diachronic_map_of_the_Spanish_Empire_2.svg JamesOredan ( talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The letters are absolutely unnecessary on a map. There is already a section of the territories and colonies of the empire. In addition the letters are very small, making it necessary to open the image.
But if you like it, it will not hurt me to keep it. What I would like is to color the areas of influence and temporary settlement, you can put it in another color to differentiate them from the "permanent" settled areas. This would be a more complete and correct map. It's what many Wikipedias do, it's not my invention.
The reason why I insist on the zones of influence is because in many of these areas the Castilians founded cities and towns. JamesOredan ( talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This gallery include the lesser coats of arms. The years given are for the coats of arms.
87.14.180.55 ( talk) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The coats of arms of the Spanish Empire's colonies were all of a uniform style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.180.55 ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction we have this unsupported claim:
"The crown's main source of wealth was from gold and silver mined in Mexico and Peru".
This is wrong. It was an important source of revenue but it was never the main source of revenue, not even close. The main source of wealth for the crown were the taxes levied on its subjects and mainly in its European territories, especially Castile. A check of any quality academic work or a quality secondary source will show this. For example see the graph on page 11 of this study (the "Indies" also includes the precious metals): https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/colloqpapers/s07/Drelichman.pdf
Could some editor please remove the above mentioned sentence from the introduction. Thankyou
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.168.162 ( talk) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's another source:
This period is in the latter part of the so-called Golden Age of Spain and underlines what I have stated above, that in the 16th and 17 centuries precious metals (silver and gold), though important, were not even close to being the "main" source of income of the crown as asserted in the introduction of this article. That sentence in the intro of this article is misleading.
The map should be changed in the violet area ("lost with peace of utrecth in 1700s"). The state of Siena was Not included in the state of presidii, it was annexed by Florence. So that part in central Italy (and in the zoomed area) should be grey except for state of presidi which is very small.
That's a pretty huge mistake.
Barjimoa ( talk) 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the "too long" tag calling for the reduction in the size of the article, pending a discussion by editors of this page. It is a long article, but it has subsections that allow readers to navigate it. If after a discussion the consensus is that it should be reduced, then let it be so. Amuseclio ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
There many Spanish flags symbols but same colors. -- Caminoderoma ( talk) 09:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberosphere. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see infobox. 14 languages, 9 religions, loads of flags, et cetera. Really? I only have a passing interest in this article so I wonder if some of the more regular editors have some time to spare? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed one paragraph from the lead that did not seem vital, but the article is long and the lead is actually pretty concise, in my humble opinion. I would like others who edit this article to weigh in. Amuseclio ( talk) 16:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
There was a tag placed a number of weeks ago by an editor whose only addition ever to the Spanish Empire article was tagging it "too long." The brief discussion between myself and that editor article seems to have been archived. I have come to agree with that editor and have moved a chunk of material on the structure of the Spanish empire in the Americas to the Spanish colonization of the Americas article. I think there needs to be a larger community discussion about what the article should include. As a Latin Americanist, I find that the article has an inordinate amount of material on Spain's conflicts in Europe. The Philippines section of the article needs to be trimmed in my opinion. I understand that the Philippines often gets left out of discussions of the Spanish empire, but I think that section could be trimmed, with a link to the main article on History of the Philippines. Anyway, I would like to open discussion and I hope that others will contribute. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
An IP has deleted material from the article as a copyright violation, but did not indicate where the original was. I have not been able to identify what the original might have been. Does anyone have more inofrmation about this? - Donald Albury 13:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
There has been persistent edit-warring in this article in the last few days. This needs to stop. Thrash out the wording here on the talk page. If the edit-warring continues, I will lock down the article, and I can guarantee you that somebody will be unhappy with the state of the article when it is locked down. - Donald Albury 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Donald Albury, i am sorry you had to do this. In my case, I am simply making the same couple of suggestions again and again, (not just here btw):
1-"The spanish empire was THE most powerful empire from 1500 to 1650". This sentence is hyperbole and pov. See one article I am working on: foremost power, there is so much overlap for that period in particular that you can't have such a solid claim. It would be much more correct to say that it was one of the biggest (without saying THE biggest for sure) or that it was one of the empires described as the biggest together with others: and the same should be done for the articles of ALL the other 16th century empires that have similar claims.
2-Whatever Charles V did in his position as Holy Roman Emperor or in his other non-spanish positions should not be counted as Spanish conquest, obviously. Excuse me all but i think that it's absolutely crazy to claim that the Sack of Rome by mutinous mercenaries was a Spanish conquest of the papacy. I had to delete this twice. What Charles V did as Charles I of Castile is one thing (and what he did as Charles II of Burgundy another thing again etc etc), but the Imperial Habsburg stuff should not be confused with the Spanish Habsburg stuff. I think that's just common sense, honestly.
In short, this article should focus only on the Spanish Empire and I think that hyperboles should be avoided. Barjimoa ( talk) 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi:
1- The Spanish Empire was (According to most scholars) the most powerful Empire in the world during the 16th and half 17th centuries. It is not my opinion, there are numerous sources that corroborate it. Spain during that time had the so-called Golden Age precisely because of its boom as a world power. It was a Global Empire that began with its expansion in the American continent reaching globality, something that the Chinese Empire and the Ottoman Empire were light years away at that time. And the Habsburg Empire is basically a composition fragmented in the mid-16th century, it is impossible for it to be the most powerful of the time above the Spanish Empire that did not stop expanding (In power and extension) in the world with Philip II during the 16th.
You affirm that the Chinese Empire of the time and the Ottoman Empire are mentioned as equal to the Spanish Empire at that time. However, the sources you provide are not weighty or reliable, and you do it without seeking consensus. In addition, the sources you used do not contradict that the Spanish Empire was the most preeminent Empire of the 16th century AND the first half of the 17th century, you only focus on the 16th with some minority appointments. When the vast majority of sources affirm that a power was the main or the most powerful (or foremost), there is nothing wrong with the use of these expressions. An example is in the British Empire article that described it as the foremost power in the world for a century although there are some sources that match it to other powers of the time.
I propose to act according to custom and keep the original previous version. You cannot add something so ambiguous and with so little consensus in the head of the article. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
If Barjimoa's proposal obtains consensus or an alternative such as the expression: "According to many scholars, the Spanish Empire was the most powerful empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries" would well see the current state of the article.
However, there is currently no consensus and the current information in the article is only the Barjimoa edition. I think that until we get consensus we should go back to the previous edition. SmithGraves ( talk) 10:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think it is reasonable to give in a dispute so as to prevent an article from being frozen and that there may not be other editions that may be beneficial.
I propose this formulation of the phrase. I think they respect both sides:
- "It was the most powerful Global Empire of the 16th and early 17th centuries" (The others are not global empires)
- "It has been described as the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries by many scholars"
- "It was arguably the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries"
There is a fairly broad consensus by historians that the Spanish Empire of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was the greatest power of the time due to being a pioneer of globalization in the Age of Discoveries, Tercios dominated (until the Battle of Rocroi) the European battlefields, and the early and extensive colonization of the American continent and other parts of the world. SmithGraves ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Correction: "... and first half of the 17th century"* SmithGraves ( talk) 15:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand what your point is, but I think there should be proportionality. There is much historical consensus that the Spanish Empire was the greatest power in the world at that time because it was the first (or one of the first with Portugal) Global Empire that colonized large parts of the world and won many victories victories in Europe with the "Third ", the so-called Golden Age is that. The same applies to the British Empire, it is considered the greatest power for a century although there are also some authors who have described that other powers were also.There are not many sources that say that the Ming Dynasty or the Ottoman Empire were the greatest powers in the world during the 16th and 17th centuries. SmithGraves ( talk) 17:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Barjimoa, I think you're quite confused.
The Ottoman Empire was not a Global Empire, nor was the Ming Dynasty a Global Empire. And the Habsburg Empire (where the Spanish Empire was included) broke down in the mid-16th century.
I think that your sources are not reliable or that you have not read them correctly. SmithGraves ( talk) 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
For example, a clear source would be this, because it says clearly and unambiguously the exact phrase: "This combination of European and non-European possesions made Spain the greatest power of the sixteenth and seventeeth century"
https://books.google.es/books?id=r4kdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Spanish+empire+greatest+power+16th&source=bl&ots=xknWlrlWeZ&sig=ACfU3U3CeKlxB6ON3xjUStmE2a2be91sow&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGrsWP4uLlAhXvA2MBHQ08BDE4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=Spanish%20empire%20greatest%20power%2016th&f=false SmithGraves ( talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Donald Albury...the decision is up to you, i guess. I have made my case and I have read that of SmithGraves. Barjimoa ( talk) 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
"I am not confused...Hoslag in his book explains that Ming China ruled a quarter of the world's population while the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents. Therefore he says that the age 1500-1750 was their global age as much as that of Spain and Portugal. He calls the Habsburg Empire the premier global empire (and he lists it as including HRE, Spain, Portugal, their colonies, Hungary etc etc ). His book appears to be pretty solid and researched to me."
The fact that the Ming Empire ruled over a quarter of the population does not mean that it is a Global Empire, because the vast majority of its population is in China. The region of China has always been a very populated area, that is a misleading fact.
The Ottoman Empire spread over 3 continents yes, but their territories are contiguous and very close to each other. By that same rule the Roman Empire is a Global Empire when it was not. A Global Empire by definition is an Empire with large overseas territories, and that is not fulfilled by the Ottoman Empire. The Spanish Empire expanded across all continents.
The Habsburg Empire was global, but I repeat, it disappeared as such in the mid-16th century. It is impossible for it to be the most powerful Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Half of the sources you have used do not display well or directly do not show the exact quotation. But aside from that, I have not denied that there are any authors who have ever written that another Empire is the most powerful of "X" moment. There are also authors who believe that there were more powerful empires than the British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but even so in their article it is mentioned that the British Empire was the foremost global empire for a century because most sources claim it was the British Empire.
I think that proportionality should be used. There are still more consensus, sources and common sense data that tip the balance towards the Spanish Empire because it was the only Global Empire (With the Portuguese). As much as there is some author who affirms in a book does not turn it into something doubtless or true. Without disrespecting the sources I see the solution of this problem in 2 ways:
1: It is specified that the Spanish Empire was the foremost GLOBAL Empire of the sixteenth century and first half of the seventeenth to distinguish it from other non-global empires such as the Turkish and Chinese.
This is the consensual definition of Global Empire: <<"Global" or "world" means that the territory under its sovereignty is spread throughout the world. The basic criterion is that when sailing in the world, the territory from the westernmost point to the easternmost point must be at least one half of the world perimeter (about 20,000 km, or 12,400 miles), "global" means Empire must pass at least 180 degrees longitude and at least 90 degrees latitude">>
2: Or, it is specified that the Spanish Empire was the most powerful Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries by many scholars.
None of the 2 options is a lie and is perfectly valid. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kansas Bear ( talk) The quotation I mentioned is in the introduction section, at the end of page 2. SmithGraves ( talk) 08:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
No, Barjimoa. The Spanish Empire remained a superpower also in the 18th century.
The most correct thing is to say that it was the largest Global Empire of the 16th century and half of the 17th century. That would not generate any contradiction. SmithGraves ( talk) 08:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Largest or most powerful* like the stated sources. SmithGraves ( talk) 09:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There are already sources that indicate that Spain was a Global Empire, and that it was also the most powerful in the 16th and mid-17th centuries.
I think we should put that and end the discussion. SmithGraves ( talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Kansas Bear ( talk), here it is specified very clearly too.
"The Spanish Empire became the foremost GLOBAL power of its time ..."
Chapter 14. Section 3: The fulfilment of the curse in the Spanish Empire.
SmithGraves ( talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Barjimoa, you explained quite well, I have not denied that there are some authors who claim that "X" another Empire was more powerful in "X" period. That happens in almost absolutely any facet of the History.
However, the Spanish Empire is the only one that its a GLOBAL Empire. Neither the Chinese Empire nor the Ottoman were Global Empires, and the Habsburg Empire did not survive the sixteenth century, it disintegrated in the mid-sixteenth century and its globality was given by the Spanish Empire itselfs
Therefore, the only coherent way to differentiate (and proprational) is:
"The Spanish Empire was the foremost GLOBAL empire in the 16th and mid-17th"
Or
"The Spanish Empire was the foremost power in the world in the 16th and mid-17th according to many scholars" SmithGraves ( talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Both definitions are true, good and supported with sources. SmithGraves ( talk) 11:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
"Was Spain the most powerful global empire for an uninterrupted 150 years, from 1500 to 1650?"
I answer your question: Yes, it was. I have passed several sources where it is stated that the Spanish Empire is the most powerful Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries. (Not only with Philip II)
The Habsburg Empire was almost completely formed by the Spanish Empire itself and the Iberian Union the same. That in no way contradicts something because the Spanish Empire is a major majority component of those.
The Chinese Empire and the Ottoman Empire were not global empires, and the data you provide is not at all required to be a Global Empire. A Global Empire needs overseas territories far from its Imperial capital, not "X%" of local population.
I have given in to modify the article (When it was already well) and I have proposed 2 quite realistic alternatives. We can clarify that the Spanish Empire was the most powerful Global Empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century or clarify that the Spanish Empire is described by many scholars as the most powerful empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century.
Both options are completely respectful and supported by sources. SmithGraves ( talk) 12:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That is what I know scholars have written. Previously Cristiano Tomás told me this in this discussion: "I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers." I am fine with it too. The key difference is between "the most" and "among the most". Barjimoa ( talk) 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no "Global Empire" apart from the Spanish that has been described as the most powerful of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. I have already repeated it several times.
In addition to that, it is perfectly valid to say that the Spanish Empire is described according to many scholars as the foremost power of the 16th and mid-17th centuries. Because there are literally many sources that describe it in that way.
Feel free to go to the Ottoman Empire, Chinese, etc articles and add in their headings the citations you want. But this is the article of the Spanish Empire and if there are many sources that describe it as the foremost GLOBAL power there is nothing wrong about it. In fact, it has always been the usual description in this article and other articles.
I have made 2 real proposals, supported by sources (Even textually) and respecting the divergence of your authors. I think thats enough.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
No no no. I think you got it wrong. I say that you feel free to add in the article of the Ottoman Empire that some authors consider that it was the most powerful during "X" time, etc. If you provide reliable sources and there are indeed authors who says it, there are no problems to do that.
However, neither the Ottoman Empire, nor the Chinese, nor the Portuguese, nor the Dutch, nor the Indian have been described as: "The foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries"
Therefore, I see no problem in that mention in the article of the Spanish Empire. But even if that creates a problem for you I have proposed another alternative that qualifies that the Spanish Empire is described by many scholars as the foremost power of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. SmithGraves ( talk) 14:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose to use any of those 2 forms of description that appear textually in the sources or return to the state in which the article was always before the edit war. SmithGraves ( talk)
I find quite ineccesary and disrespectful the suggest that the status of an evangelist is incompatible with history. But I will not enter that debate.
Similarly, there are many other sources that textually support the description of the Spanish Empire. Among many others:
Page 57:
"The 16th and 17th witnessed the apogee of the Spanish Empire under the aegis of Austrians and it became the world's foremost power."
"A partir del siglo xvi, cuando la monarquía hispánica surge como la primera potencia mundial.../English: From the sixteenth century, when the Hispanic monarchy emerges as the first world power..."
https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/anuario/anuario_14/crespo/p01.htm
No other Global Empire has been described as the "foremost power of the sixteenth or mid-seventeenth century". I repeat to you that the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese, etc are not considered Global Empires, because it is necessary to have overseas territories to be a Global Empire. And the Habsburg Empire and the Iberian Union are fundamentally the Spanish Empire if we talk about its global character.
<<"Global" or "world" means that the territory under its sovereignty is spread throughout the world. The basic criterion is that when sailing in the world, the territory from the westernmost point to the easternmost point must be at least one half of the world perimeter (about 20,000 km, or 12,400 miles), "global" means Empire must pass at least 180 degrees longitude and at least 90 degrees latitude">>
The current state of the article is a new and provisional edition that you have added. The original state that has always remained is the one before the edit war not your last edit.
I propose to use the description that the sources support about the Spanish Empire or to clarify that it is described in this way by many scholars. Or finally return to the previous state of the article before the edit war.
For example: "The Spanish Empire has been described as the most powerful Global Empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century"
or
"The Spanish Empire has been described as the greatest power of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century by many scholars"
Both options are widely supported by sources and are respectful with your other sources because they allow to make a distinction with the rest of the Empires you have named. If not, I would agree to return to the stable version before the edit war, which is the version that has been for years.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Well if you say so. I will not enter personal assessments to third parties, or to different topics.
Anyway, before and after that source I already sent many other sources. And that Spanish website you mention is the Instituto Cervantes, the largest Institution of the Spanish language and History (Along with RAE) and is widely used as source in Wikipedia, its quite valid and composed with academics.
The most logical and unbiased way is to apply the sources. And otherwise leave things as they were before the edit war.
I say the same. I keep my last message. SmithGraves ( talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Kansas, read well. Global power is not the same as Global Empire. What I affirm is that the Ottoman Empire, neither the Chinese were Global Empire, nor are they described as such. Look at the Wikipedia page "Global Empire"
Also, Kansas, I have sent many, many more sources apart from the one you mentioned. I'm very sorry, but I don't agree with the proposal.
The status before the editing war already had consensus (since 2015) and supported with sources.
SmithGraves ( talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Defining the Ottoman Empire as a World Empire seems to me a real madness, because it is a relatively small Empire and its territories are contiguous and close to its capital. It has no overseas territories. If you go to the Global Empire article from Wikipedia you can see that the agreed criteria are different.
If the Ottoman Empire considers it a Global Empire, then the Roman Empire that was of similar size and shape also seems like a World Empire? I think it's amazing to think about it.
But regardless of that, you have obtained a source that in my opinion describes a non-global Empire as the World Empire. Okay, so let's throw away my first proposition.
Now, what is the problem in using my second proposition? That is, to clarify that "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars".
It is a reality that there are many sources that agree that the Spanish Empire was the greatest power of this era. And by clarifying that there are many, but not all, it does not generate any problem with other sources, nor does it deny that there may be many, few or very few sources that think that another Empire was the greatest power. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Barjimoa, I would agree with your proposal, but there are many Empires with hyperbolic descriptions. Including the article of the British Empire.
What does not seem right to me is that with the Spanish Empire no such descriptions are allowed, but they are allowed with the rest. The way to proceed from Wikipedia has never been to suppress hyperbolic descriptions. Simply transcribe and apply the source.
That is why my second proposal makes a lot of sense, and obviously feel free to add the same in the Ottoman and Chinese Empire. There would not be so many editions in the 16th century empires. And I would be willing to help you edit those articles of Empires that are described as major powers of the 16th century.
Either we eliminate hyperbolic descriptions for all or add them, but something intermediate and discretionary is not a logical or criterion measure.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of whether we like it or not, if the criterion used in Wikipedia is the use of (or allow) hyperbolic phrases there is no reason to veto them in this article.
Therefore, my second proposal is much appropiate, because it is much more consistent with the used criteria. We cannot give a different treatment.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I tend to be cautious about what articles say in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer something along the lines of the proposal by SmithGraves above, "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars". Perhaps we could also include something to the effect that other empires of that period had larger populations, but only the Portuguese and Spanish Empires (and later, the Dutch and English Empires) stretched across oceans. - Donald Albury 04:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it is indisputable that the Spanish Empire was a Global Empire, I dont think there is debate in it and I maintain that the Ottoman and Chinese Empire are not Global or World Empires. However, I consider that both Donald Albury and Barjimoa's proposals are in essence and in form one of my first proposals I made at the beginning of this long debate.
I am quite satisfied with any of the 2 proposals, and I am available to help Barjimoa (if required) to apply something similar and proportional in other articles. We must wait to see the final opinion of Donald Albury on Barjimoa's proposal, but for me there is consensus with either of them. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español; Latin: Imperium Hispanicum), historically known as the Hispanic Monarchy (Spanish: Monarquía Hispánica) and as the Catholic Monarchy (Spanish: Monarquía Católica[1]), was one of the largest empires in history. From the late 15th century to the early 19th, Spain controlled a huge overseas territory in the New World, the Asian archipelago of the Philippines, what they called "The Indies" (Spanish: Las Indias) and territories in Europe, Africa and Oceania.[2] The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a description also given to the Portuguese Empire.[4] It was the foremost colonial empire of the 16th and 17th centuries according to many scholars. Becoming known as "the empire on which the sun never sets", it reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.
I would like to know the opinion of Donald Albury. But of course, it is essentially one of my first proposals. For me there is consensus with both propositions. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
So...SmithGraves was a sockpuppet of JamesOredan...an user already blocked twice and with at least another sockpuppet. He had an agenda, i think. Thank you Drmies for discovering it.
Kansas Bear, you said this:
I would have to agree with Barjimoa's suggestion, "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries"
Cristiano Tomás, you said this:
:@ Barjimoa: seems to be making the more reasonable argument. I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers.
Donald Albury, you said this:
I tend to be cautious about what articles say in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer something along the lines of the proposal by SmithGraves above, "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars". Perhaps we could also include something to the effect that other empires of that period had larger populations, but only the Portuguese and Spanish Empires (and later, the Dutch and English Empires) stretched across oceans.
The current intro is:
The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a description also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It has been described as the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries, a description also given to other empires of the period, becoming known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reaching its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]
In light of the sources and in light of the debate, My alternative proposal is:
The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a definition also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It was one of the empires described as the most powerful of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Spanish Empire became known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]
I think it's a good way to put it IF you feel that a change is still necessary. Barjimoa ( talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
I've fully protected the page for 24 hours because of the edit warring today. Please continue to discuss proposed changes here or follow WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Mark Arsten ( talk) 23:40, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
This time for a week. Please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.-- Chaser ( talk) 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Spanish Empire is an important article, but the introduction currently breaches the general guidance for Lede length - see Lede Length for more info. It is supposed to be four paras for an article of this length and right now the article intro has five paragraphs, some of which are very long and could probably be better synopsised. I would suggest that paragraphs four and five could be shortened and merged; paragraphs one and two could be shorter, particularly parts of para one which are really about the history of Spain itself and are substantially covered in the article text. Any thoughts welcomed. Jamesinderbyshire ( talk) 09:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC) hi this is lame..:D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.130.157.215 ( talk) 01:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
Another problem in introduction is the wrong map without kingdoms of Spanish Empire. You can see the biased data of the territory of Crown of Castile missing in the Trasamundo map. People can not understand the Spanish Empire without this basic information. The ABC to understand.
-- Santos30 ( talk) 17:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I request your Promise ¿Yes or not? -- Santos30 ( talk) 22:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The sockpuppet Santos30 kicked out of Wikipedia in Spanish
[3]
[4] due to the impossibility to impose his POV in Wikipedia in Spanish, arrives to wikipedia in English to impose their POV.
But no matter what I say. I know that the sockpuppet Santos30 will ignore everything and will enter edit warring to remove the term of Spain although wikipedia policy prevents doing that, and will put the linking to the crown of Castile wherever and however without taking into account either the context or meaning of the phrases, all these show their malicious intentions. Trasamundo ( talk) 13:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:55, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 20:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I am not here to bear a childish behaviour. The claims of Santos30 to alter the text of this article with consensus since several yeaars, to put additions which deny the existence of Spain based on the specific fact that Indies was incorporated administratively to the Crown of Castile are simply the original research, as biased.
The existing bibliography at least in English language use the term Spain, the rule of Spain, Spanish state, Spanish territories... as an example here [8] [9] [10] Since the bibliography widely uses the term Spain, the article and the map, must, and indeed, agree with the bibliography.
Despite is included in the article that Indies was incorporated to the Crown of Castile, which nobody has denied, with the same references as Santos30 has provided, Santos30 continues to give to understand this information is not included, and he continues with this discussion and he continues to try to impose that same repeated references by force again and again. Someone might think that the aim of Santos30 is to inform, but no, that's not a reason to include these references by force, because such information and references are already included in the article. His purpose is to illustrate a point, that Spain did not exist, that is his particular purpose. I know which will be his answer, because the fact of the wording of the article must be according to English-language reference works about the Spanish empire, for him, Santos30, is to have obsession with eternal Spain.
The same situation occurs with the independence of America ( [11]It is not only the intensity of the internal divisions and the obstinacy of metropolitan Spain in refusing to relinquish it tight grasp on its empire which explain the lenght and ferocity of the wars of independence). While it is feasible within the article to indicate the various causes of independence (including the constitution of 1812) because that would be neutral, however, Santos30 is not interested in completing the article with neutral information, he wants to put in the lead section a single cause in the constitution of 1812 in order to illustrate the point of nonexistence of Spain.
But Santos30 does not care about wikipedia policy, he does not mind that in wikipedia in English a neutral and encyclopedic article has to be according to English-language reference works, he does not mind if the wording in the articles is encyclopedic and for general interest. He just wants this article as an essay to support their particular view based on taking isolated sentences here and there. So any accusation by Santos30 to others about original research it is simply a comical childish tantrum as if a child is denied a candy.
The aim of Santos30 is not to insert the information that the Indies were incorporated to the Crown of Castile, because that information is already included, but his interest is simply to deny the existence of Spain, he could not care less the bibliography in English or the purpose of this article is not to define Spain. His strategy of including at all costs his particular aim by means of facts over a text with a previous consensus since several years, has caused edit wars, this is the strategy of this individual, so that the page will be blocked, and nobody can edit, which is a full-scale sabotage in wikipedia. I know that when the protection period expires Santos30 will recommence his sabotage in wikipedia trying to place his viewpoints again and again over a text with a previous consensus, so he will recommence another edit war and the article will be blocked again, but the wikipedia policy establishes that Santos30 cannot alter the pre-existing article without consensus, and although I have agreed to keep some of the contributions of Santos30, certainly all that he has previously indicated has made that I confirmed my total rejection of the other part of his contributions, to which I have given their respective and appropriate explanation, what Santos30 is not interested in understanding. Trasamundo ( talk) 12:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Santos30 will think that he is writing to Wikipedia.en. And you Trasamundo must stop your uncivil behavior.
About the Map:
About Americas and Castile:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo do not delete references. [42]
As Spanish Empire is a dynastic Union your map with "Spain as today" must be changed to Aragon and Castile.-- Santos30 ( talk) 12:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Title EDIT. for clarify the talk-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Problems with confusing Colors:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 18:04, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Needs to be mentioned! TODO Bazuz ( talk) 11:29, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Anti-Spanish propaganda was started in the 16th century when Spain was at its height of political power, by propagandists from rival European powers, namely the Protestant countries of England and the Netherlands, as a means to morally disqualify the country and its Spanish people. The Black Legend particularly exaggerates the extent of the activities of the Inquisition, or the treatment of American indigenous subjects in the territories of the Spanish Empire, and non-Catholics such as Protestants and Jews in its European territories. ( Encyclopedia Britannica entry "Black Legend")
How is it possible that in an article about the Spanish Empire was no mention of the Black Legend? -- Bashevis6920 ( talk) 13:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Sánchez Prieto, Ana Belén (2004) (in Spanish). La intitulación diplomática de los Reyes Católicos: un programa político y una lección de historia. Reference 58 say citation: "Y por lo tanto ha de entenderse que la mención a Fernando se hacía en cuanto rey de Castilla en virtud de la Concordia de Segovia, y de ahí que el título de Indias debiera incorporarse a Castilla a su muerte."
It is not the same: "with his death" vs "after his death" when? in 1519? as Trasamundo POV? [50]-- Santos30 ( talk) 14:54, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe better translation than "with his death" for "a su muerte" is "at the moment of his death". The Bibliography is totally clear to indicate that Indias was joins to Crown of Castile at the moment of treaty with Philip (1506), and returns again at the moment of death of Ferdinand (1516) once and for all. Not with Charles after beginning 1519.-- Santos30 ( talk) 16:15, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
I will revert you, except your grammar correction that is better. Or not because is slightly worst: upon his death nonspecific the moment same Wordreference source.-- Santos30 ( talk) 22:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
If "consensus" was wrong must to change. It is not logical expand your mistake as a bubble in all the maps of Wikipedia. Discovery is an act of possesion if not disputed, for example Cuba. It is not the same "De Jure" as Balboa and Pacific Ocean. Who disputed to Balboa? A lots of states: Portugal, UK, Netherlands, etc. Not logically in the year of 1513, that deserves no comment. A little of common sense Trasamundo please.
-- Santos30 ( talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
The map showing the territorial extension of the empire should not include Portuguese possessions because even during the Iberian Union, both empires were kept separate. Califate123! ( talk) 09:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
http://aglobalworld.com/holidays-around-the-world/portugal-restoration-independence/ Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 ( talk) 03:26, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
This is completely untrue. The Ottoman were basically Mediterranean pirates. And the battle of Lepanto wiped them all out. They never recovered since, because nowadays we associate muslims with camels, but not with war ships (ironic, but it's still true). In fact the Spanish ruled only after the battle of Lepanto over the hole Mediterranean sea, and not before as you write. And beside that they ruled over most of South America, that's when English piracy grew very popular. I'm not saying that queen Elisabeth was a pirate queen, but almost since Francis Drake was a pirate. I know that Britsmen hate Spain, but that's no reason for these inaccuracies in the English Wikipedia. Because after all it was the British who worked together with the Ottoman Empire in a guerilla war on sea against the Spanish kingdom. Still it was finally France who crushed Spain (yeah, that Louis XIII-guy who nobody seems to like nowadays...) and not the UK. -- 178.197.228.81 ( talk) 23:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
World Without End: The Global Empire of Philip II. By Hugh Thomas
Here is an article: http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21606735-illuminating-defence-way-spain-expanded-its-reach-across-americas-border — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 ( talk) 00:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
The title “Treaty of Alcáçovas and the first colonial war” is more correct and accurate than the previous “Early Portuguese-Spanish Conflicts over territory outside the Iberian Peninsula”. The naval war of 1475-79 was much more than a “conflict” and involved colonies, islands, the west African coast, Atlantic supremacy and the monopoly of gold and slaves (besides ivory and pepper). It was really a colonial war among modern European powers. The first one.
Alcáçovas -the treaty that finished this war- also represented the first sharing of the known world.
“Territory outside the Iberian Peninsula” is too vague.
As British historian Sir Peter Russel wrote: «putting on one side the skirmishes which regularly took place in the Canaries between castilians and Portuguese from 1425 onwards, this 1475-79 war was the earliest colonial war between European powers.» (cited in History in Africa, vol. 17, African Studies Association, 1990, p. 116). Also historian Herman L. Bennet, commenting the book of John William Blake: «…Europeans in West Africa, 1450-1560 … illustrate the nature and scope of Portuguese enterprise in West Africa, the abortive attempt of Castilians to create an empire there and…» (Africans in Colonial Mexico, 2005, p. 254). There can be no doubt about the purpose of the Catholic Kings to build an empire in Africa at the expense of the Portuguese: «After some preliminary skirmishing a regular war at sea broke out in 1475, when Isabella of Castile … ordered her subjects to wrest what they could of the spoils of Africa from their neighbours. The Portuguese emerged the winners in the murderous hostilities that ensued, and by the…» (John Ewbank M. White in Cortés and the downfall of the Aztec Empire, 1971, p. 39).
As for the colonial nature of the Treaty of Alcáçovas (which finished this war), see Peter Padfield: «Exploration stopped … as war broke out between Portugal and Castile, and the sporadic actions between Portuguese vessels and increasing number of Spanish intruders on the West African coast flared up into regular operations concerned with the seizure of bases in the Canaries [and in Ceuta, Morocco, as well as in the Cape Verde islands] and the control of the Guinea trade. The Portuguese proved more than a match for their opponents at sea, and after four years of savage fighting the Treaty of Alcaçovas, while allowing the Spanish their existing colonies in the Canaries, confirmed the Portuguese in the African monopoly … this was the first of a long series of European treaties concerned with colonies and trading spheres. » (Tide of Empires, 1481-1654, 1979, p. 26).
Hispanicultur ( talk) 18:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
And btw the chronological order of the article is completely rubbish, too. -- 178.197.228.81 ( talk) 00:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Habsburg Dynastic territories located in Holy Roman Empire were not part of the Spanish Empire. You confused the term of Personal union and Colony. -- Kirglach ( talk) 12:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
New Spain conquered Fort St. Joseph in present-day Michigan in a 1781 Expedition. It's present-day location, the City of Niles, calls itself the City of Four Flags in reference to all the countries that once ruled it: France, Britain, Spain, and America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.200.168.114 ( talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC8A:8720:703A:8402:7515:70BD ( talk)
The Spanish Empire was a bit bigger than what is shown, leading to misinformation. For starters, the Patagonia was considered spanish territory from the get go, with many posts and expeditions there all the time. Also, in the southern united states, Spain had territory as far as Georgia. Once again, around Oregon and Washington and even a little bit of territory in Canada. They had a lot of interest in this northwestern pacific region and their expeditions reached as far as Alaska. 2001:1388:103:519B:754F:2491:1A2F:568D ( talk) 20:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The topic of slaves and slavery is found in this article but only between the lines. While the Spanish Empire was built upon the shoulders of enslaved Americans and Africans, coerced workers who were indispensable for sustaining the empire, there is no section here explaining its importance. I plead here the case for redressing this omission.
It was Spain (it was not called Spain, when all this tragedy began, though) the first to enslaved indigenous people in the Americas. Ask Bartolomé de las Casas. It was Spain who brought the first enslaved Africans to Hispaniola, and then to other parts of the Americas. It was Spain who set the foundation of modern racism with its religious ( inquisitorial) concept of Limpieza de Sangre, and the castas, systems of thought that sustained the Spanish rule over a majority of non-Europeans and non-Whites. Etc. Etc. Thanks. 71.63.91.85 ( talk) 07:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Please participate in RfC on this page. Dlohcierekim ( talk) 16:05, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
[[Link to some other page#RfC thread|RfC on this page]]
". Derp. —
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<
05:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Hello. I believe that the Spanish empire should have a map of JUST the Spanish empire without the claimed territories, Habsburg dominions, and Dynastic unions. My image I've posted earlier is just that. The image is simpler to understand and decently accurate. The map that JavierNF96 posted is inaccurate in some areas, and is too vague in the pink color coding, as it can represent several different meanings. The map that Ruepc posted is much better and more accurate. However in my opinion, it should not be posted as the infobox picture, as it is misleading to what is actually the Spanish empire. An image like Ruepc's should be posted somewhere else in the article, hence it already is in section 2. Please share your thoughts and hopefully we can come up with a resolution. Thanks. Empirecoins ( talk) 21:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
This message goes out to 90.94.208.147. Your map you are adding onto the infobox is incorrect. The Spanish Empire did not have possession of the Southern part of what is now Argentina and Chile. This is why Argentina only had this much land at the time of there independence. Also, the Spanish Empire had possession of what is now the Netherlands. See Habsburg Netherlands. This image is also of poor quality. Empirecoins ( talk) 21:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
And here is yet another map, "SpanishEmpire1790.svg", that cannot be expanded to view the details, added by JavierNF96, who has not joined in the discussion. These unreadable maps are of no use to general readers. Funny how all these maps are being added by editors who refuse to engage in the discussion here. This has become disruptive editing. If you have a problem with the maps, discuss here and stop arguing in edit summaries. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 15:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I've worked on this one if you want to use it: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png The 1790 svg map can be expanded using the browser zoom or, if youre in a smartphone, using the "pinch to zoom" gesture. I can make a png version if needed. Honestly the southern tip of South America should be shaded, as it is half of Australia in many New South Wales maps of late 1700s, or the whole Louisiana in 1810 US maps, or the Arctic islands in the 1800s British Canada maps, or Siberia in the Russian empire maps of early 1800s... there are many examples of "claimed but not occupied" territories that are assigned to a certain power, in this case Portugal and Spain agreed to divide South America in the Treaty of Madrid and Treaty of San Ildefonso in a way in which all territories west of that line were assigned to Spain. Many maps do not reflect this and show Patagonia as unclaimed territory because there is an interest of foreign powers in diminishing the sphere of influence of others. For instance, the Amazon basin was not included in Brazil territory as late as 1950 in some USA maps... But the Patagonia was claimed by Spain and recognized by the other South American involved power, which was Portugal. Nagihuin ( talk) 20:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Empirecoins: That's a good question, and I've questioned that to myself many times. Let me explain this Patagonia topic. I myself have doubted many times but after studying many historical maps, I think it should be fully included into Spanish possesions as Louisiana is included in 1810 US maps, for instance:
-What is a fully occupied or effectively occupied territory? I consider that question really tricky to answer properly. For instance, are Arctic Canadian Islands fully occupied by Canada nowadays? What about the Australian Outback? And the Amazon basin in Brazil? When is a territory considered effectively occupied? There are territories even in our modern nation states which aren't still fully charted, with tribes discovered still today, and they're not occupied or settled or explored. Maybe a settlement with buildings means it is fully occupied. But, how much territory do you add in the surroundings? 1km, 10 km, 100 km? 1000km? How do you decide that? Is a road or a pathway built by a power something that qualifies that territory as "effectively occupied"? What about the surroundings of that road? What kind of territory do we need to qualify some land as fully occupied territory? A farm, a desert... is the Algerian desert fully occupied?
Those questions are horrribly difficult to answer. The thing is, we do have maps that do not follow the rule of "shaded area=fully occupy land". And there are plenty of them. For instance, let's see this map of 1788 Australia, when there was only one outpost built in Sydney. But we had nearly half of Australia shaded as part of the British Empire. How is that? We only had a couple of hundred squared meters fully occupied in Sydney!
Take as well into consideration all those maps of early USA like this one I add here. What's up with all that Missisippi basin? Was that fully occupied? Completely not. There were still hundreds of hostile Native American tribes which were not aware of these borders and they fought until their extermination to defend their land in the following decades. The last wars were won in late 1890. Does that mean that the USA maps shouldn't shade the Mississippi basin until 1900? It's shaded as a full American territory (not into statehood, but fully American anyway).
I think the "fully occupied territory" criterion is not only difficult to answer, but also not followed in important historical maps like those. So, what's the solution? There is not a complete solution, but I give you my opinion. My thought is that territories should be shaded as fully integrated in the empire or nation if they were "charted, claimed and recognized by powers capable of projecting force in the area". Although this triad of criteria is not entirely clear either, it may be better than the fully occupied criterion. And that triad of criteria is followed in 1810 USA maps or 1788 Australia maps. So Patagonia was charted, claimed by Spain and recognized by Portugal, the other South American power, in the late 1700s:
1. "There was native resistance". Yes there was. But there were native resistance in the Louisiana territory in the USA, right? Why then it is shaded as integral part of the USA, and Patagonia not part of the Spanish Empire?
2. "There was not settled". That's not right. It was also moderately settled (Carmen de Patagones, San José, Colonia Floridablanca, Puerto Deseado in the coast). Those are more settlements, in number, than Sydney in the 1788 which justifies that half of Australia shaded map.
3. "It was not recognized by foreign powers". That's also contested. Portugal did recognize Spanish rule west of the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 and the Treaty of San Ildefonso in the 1770s line dividing South America between them. Also, Spain didn't recognized the British rule in early 1788 Australia. But those maps of half of Australia shaded in 1788 are still there. The thing is, Spain couldn't seize Australia from the British (Australia was part of the Castilian hemisphere according to Tordesillas treaty, so they claimed it as late as 1790), and in the same way, foreign powers depriving Patagonia in their maps weren't also capable of seizing it. Yes there are some old maps with Patagonia coloured in another color different from the Pampa region. But there are also old maps that show Patagonia included in the Spanish sphere. How many old maps do we need to colour something in a way or another?
Maybe it is better to reserve the lighter shade to "claimed but effectively disputed areas" (instead of simply "claimed lands") with major intrusions and constant operations of foreign powers, like the Portuguese in the Amazon basin in the 1730s (claimed by Spain), which were founding cities and raiding here and there, or the Nootka territory where British and Russian vessels were thriving. But the Patagonian lands were just remote, native governed lands, with no large interventions of foreign major powers, just as the 1810 American Louisiana or the 1788 Australian Outback...
As I said, these are just my opinions after heavy research, but I have had different opinions myself, as you could see it in the earlier versions of the SVG map. Thank you all! Nagihuin ( talk) 20:01, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Again I attend a war of maps based on subjective impressions and brief comments without showing anything, and also, ignoring the situation prior to the conflict, something that is not allowed in Wikipedia.
Since 2009 this map [59] made by me has been the stable map in this article. This map was drawn up by me, something that has not been mentioned previously, and it was the result of very hard discussions in order to achieve something satisfactory. In 2015 Nagihuin's map [60], based on mine, was added, and this was no problem, in fact I tried to place it in the lead section but it is not allowed due to style. However, I have read several considerations about the map in the infobox without taking into account the situation prior to September 2017. That is, a surrealistic discussion is made as there would have been no map before September 2017, and a well-founded consensus has been ignored by subjective considerations and capricious tastes, without anticipating the risks, and this is very irregular.
Now I am going to indicate briefly why the map [61] that has been present around for years don't have to be changed:
In the first place, my map, being in SVG format, complies with the image policy WP:IUP, something that this map [62] does not do, and therefore my map on having a SVG format takes precedence.
In the second place, it is argued in a sentence that the Portuguese empire was not part of Spanish empire as if the rest of us were ignorant. It is very funny because the opposite (the Portuguese empire was part of Spanish empire) was proved in a contudent and reliable way many years ago, in fact among my many interventions I can take two as an example. [63] [64]
Before this reliable verification, the text of the article was changed, and was made in the lead section in a way that ensured the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in order that in the future the war of editions of that time would not be repeated. I cannot stop smiling to try to finish off to me almost ten years later with a single sentence.
Therefore this map [65] that does not contain the Portuguese territories does not serve for this article, because it does not comply with the content of the article, since the content of the article requires the inclusion of Portugal.
Third, another of the challenges I had to face in creating the map [66] was the way of including Portugal. Once demonstrated that Portugal had to be included, it was necessary to establish the best form. On the one hand the Portuguese users did not want to see their territory colonized by Spain presented on the map, on the other hand Portugal at that time was a domain of the Crown like Sicily, and therefore was no reason to differentiate the color between the Portuguese part and the Castilian-Aragonese-Burgundy part. The best option was to divide the map into historical periods, so, on the one hand the Portuguese would not see their former country subdued and dominated, and on the other, there was respected that Iberian Union was a historical period between other different periods and hereby it was respected to the neutral point of view.
When on 8 September the blocked troll took the unilateral decision to change the map ignoring these issues and trampling on a very elaborate consensus and strongly settled in the Wikipedia policy, to put subjective consideration, then all kinds of disputes that were judicious solved in the past, arose, and this is not a coincidence. Leave alone this map to that he attends both to the Portuguese identity and to the reality of the domains of the monarch at that time. Trasamundo ( talk) 20:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Spanish Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Spanish Empire. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
On further inspection of this map, I have to agree with TompaDompa that it is of little use. I have tried expanding it and even downloading the source file, but it appears unreadable to me. Is there a way to view it so the text is legible? If not it should be removed. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 22:28, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree this map is of little use but the Portuguese territories are there from the Iberian Union. Bobbbcat ( talk) 02:35, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I honestly have worked on the map https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg for ages and it has tons of details and information that are not provided in any other map. Just compare it with the others. I think all this work should be shown somewhere in the article, if not in the header, at least in the main text. The map is not intended to be seen from the distance, but to be zoomed in to see all the details, that's the way it is readable. Nagihuin ( talk) 10:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I've created this PNG version which is readable instead of the svg. Check it out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png Nagihuin ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex, check this out, tell me if you read it well. I've enlarged the scale:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg
We could use this map which is hundreds of times more detailed.
Nagihuin (
talk)
21:04, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
There have been three different maps added/removed recently, sometimes with no edit summary, sometimes arguing in summaries. Could we please have a discussion over the map to reach some consensus? Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 18:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
So the current map seems to be suggesting that in 1790 the Seventeen Provinces and the Kingdom of Sicily were still part of the Spanish Empire. I would say that is incorrect. Dragon2K ( talk) 08:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
You are free to use that map of mine, or also this one which is more complete: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg if you want to use it in the header, just removing or simplifying some text if needed.
I've drawn them both, I'm open to discussion. Nagihuin ( talk) 11:01, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
I've created this PNG version which is readable instead of the svg. Check it out: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f5/SpanishEmpire.png Nagihuin ( talk) 11:28, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Laszlo Panaflex, check this out, tell me if you read it well. I've enlarged the scale: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/72/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg We could use this map which is hundreds of times more detailed. 77.228.43.120 ( talk) 21:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
the Spanish empire in the time of Felipe II also had in its possession the territories of the Portuguese empire. The map needs to be modified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.226.176 ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Please review WP policy on the lead section and especially the opening paragraph, as recent additions are inappropriate, as well as making questionable claims. It equates the Kingdom of Castile with the empire, though the link provided states the kingdom ended in 1230 (and the third paragraph of the lead already discusses this more clearly). Going into its income source in the second sentence is undue weight, as is the tangent on religion. The previous version of the lead was concise, followed WP:LEAD, and was stable for at least a couple of years. Laszlo Panaflex ( talk) 20:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't want to be engaged in an edit war. My apologies for causing some editors distress or confusion with my edits. I do want the article to be clear, factual, and grounded in sources. I can turn my attention to expanding the text in the main article so that it matches more closely to text I recently added the lead. As a professional historian of Spanish America and the Atlantic world, I see the article on the Spanish Empire as extremely important for understanding world history as well as for understanding how colonial Spanish America's experience has shaped that region. Spanish America is largely Spanish-speaking, Roman Catholic, and has export-led economies, all legacies of its being part of the Spanish Empire.`My goal as a Wikipedia editor is to improve articles in which I have expertise. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:03, 17 January 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I agree with Laszlo Panaflex, the lead section is an article in itself, and it violates the Manual of Style, which are the rules to try to create some coherence in Wikipedia. Curiously, the previous version was elaborated by me, when on August 1, 2016 I cleared another cumbersome lead section. I really do not understand these ways of proceeding. Nothing in that case, I will have to put the template again. Trasamundo ( talk) 21:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
I trimmed the lead and will integrate some of the removed text into the article at a later date. I hope that editors who have participated in this discussion will look at the revised lead and assess whether the tag should be removed. For my part, I'll be working on the body of the article and not the lead. Amuseclio ( talk) 00:10, 3 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
A sentence in the lead is unclear. It reads: "Under this political configuration, irrespective of the denominations[13] given to the "dynastic union"[14][15] existing from 1580 to 1640, the Portuguese realm kept its own administration and jurisdiction over its territory, as did the other kingdoms and realms ruled by the Spanish Habsburgs.[16]" What specifically does "irrespective of the denominations" mean? This unclear clause has 9 references that aim support it (in reference 13). Reference 13 has the appearance of a single work when reading the text, but when seeing the references themselves they appear to be an example of what Wikipedia describes as Wikipedia:Citation overkill. The citation overkill might be the result of some previous edit war of which I have no knowledge. In the 9 works cited, none has specific page numbers. One listed is Leslie Bethell, ed. The Cambridge History of Latin America, a multi-volume work spanning the colonial to modern eras, making the reference so nonspecific as to be useless for verification.
I recommend an editor clarify what "irrespective of denominations" means and then trim citations to one or two, with specific page numbers, permitting verification of the sources supporting the clarified statement. Obviously one or more editors sees the point (i.e., "irrespective of denominations") as important, so it would be good to have its meaning clear. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
In my view, the section on Audiencias is currently far too detailed for a general article on the Spanish Empire. It does need to be described, since it is a key institution. I have added the link under the subsection heading to the main article, Real Audiencia. I propose moving the detailed discussion on different types of Audiencias and judges to the main article, so that those interested can read further. Amuseclio ( talk) 17:34, 18 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I suggest trimming the discussion on Spain and the American Revolutionary War, leaving the important points, but shifting the details to the separate Wikipedia article on the topic and adding a links between the two articles. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:01, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
I don't think majority of the information in this subsection fits a general article on the Spanish Empire. I propose eliminating the subsection and then incorporating text on letrados under the Catholic Monarchs into the discussion of organization of empire. I also propose then moving the remaining text to the history section of the Wiki article on Higher Education in Spain. Amuseclio ( talk) 19:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
Hi and I apologise for getting back to you so late Amuseclio! I reverted the edit mainly because you didn't transfer the section to the article on Higher Education in Spain as you said you would. I do also believe that the section is relevant in this article too, as it gives the reader background information on the whole process of educating an almost medieval population in order to run what was, alongside the Portuguese, the first 'colonial empire'. I firmly believe we should not change that section and leave it as it is. You could however, add a section on "letrados" WITHIN the lawyer-bureaucrats section if you consider it to be right. Sorry for the delay of my message and my perhaps slightly violent reversion! Best regards, -- Barbudo Barbudo ( talk) 13:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I think this section should be more succinct. I would like to move material to History of the Caribbean and/or Spanish colonization of the Americas and have a shorter version of the main points of this section. I think right now it is too detailed for the general Spanish Empire article. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Amuseclio
This
edit request to
Spanish Empire has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change in the Charles II topic the name of the monarch that invaded Spanish Netherlands in the nine years war from Louis XVI to Louis XIV, Louis XIV was king of France until the begining of XVII century not Louis XVI.
In the Nine Years' War (1688–1697) Louis XVI once again invaded the Spanish Netherlands. to In the Nine Years' War (1688–1697) Louis XIV once again invaded the Spanish Netherlands. source - /info/en/?search=Louis_XIV_of_France Sicmundi ( talk) 15:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone got a slightly clearer map of the Empire circa 1700? ie death of Carlos/Charles II. Much appreciated if you can link me to one.
Thanks!
Robinvp11 ( talk) 18:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
As for example that is called (Even before the British Empire) "the empire in which the sun never sets". You also erased that the Spanish Empire was the foremost global power in 16th and 17th, and whose maximum territorial extension was in the 18th (Specifically in 1790). You have also eliminated that the wealth of the empire was based on the gold extracted from Peru and Mexico.
Why have you eliminated all that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.94.210.236 ( talk) 13:07, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
The image of the map of the Spanish Empire is incomplete because it lacks many large areas of exploration, influence and settlement in which cities and towns were founded by Castilian settlers.
In addition the map is confusing and not very visual, it is difficult to see the letters unless you open the image.
I propose to add a more simplified and complete map. This map is very used by many Wikipedia:
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Diachronic_map_of_the_Spanish_Empire_2.svg JamesOredan ( talk) 14:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
The letters are absolutely unnecessary on a map. There is already a section of the territories and colonies of the empire. In addition the letters are very small, making it necessary to open the image.
But if you like it, it will not hurt me to keep it. What I would like is to color the areas of influence and temporary settlement, you can put it in another color to differentiate them from the "permanent" settled areas. This would be a more complete and correct map. It's what many Wikipedias do, it's not my invention.
The reason why I insist on the zones of influence is because in many of these areas the Castilians founded cities and towns. JamesOredan ( talk) 19:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
This gallery include the lesser coats of arms. The years given are for the coats of arms.
87.14.180.55 ( talk) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
The coats of arms of the Spanish Empire's colonies were all of a uniform style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.180.55 ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction we have this unsupported claim:
"The crown's main source of wealth was from gold and silver mined in Mexico and Peru".
This is wrong. It was an important source of revenue but it was never the main source of revenue, not even close. The main source of wealth for the crown were the taxes levied on its subjects and mainly in its European territories, especially Castile. A check of any quality academic work or a quality secondary source will show this. For example see the graph on page 11 of this study (the "Indies" also includes the precious metals): https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/colloqpapers/s07/Drelichman.pdf
Could some editor please remove the above mentioned sentence from the introduction. Thankyou
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.168.162 ( talk) 01:50, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Here's another source:
This period is in the latter part of the so-called Golden Age of Spain and underlines what I have stated above, that in the 16th and 17 centuries precious metals (silver and gold), though important, were not even close to being the "main" source of income of the crown as asserted in the introduction of this article. That sentence in the intro of this article is misleading.
The map should be changed in the violet area ("lost with peace of utrecth in 1700s"). The state of Siena was Not included in the state of presidii, it was annexed by Florence. So that part in central Italy (and in the zoomed area) should be grey except for state of presidi which is very small.
That's a pretty huge mistake.
Barjimoa ( talk) 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I have removed the "too long" tag calling for the reduction in the size of the article, pending a discussion by editors of this page. It is a long article, but it has subsections that allow readers to navigate it. If after a discussion the consensus is that it should be reduced, then let it be so. Amuseclio ( talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
There many Spanish flags symbols but same colors. -- Caminoderoma ( talk) 09:42, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberosphere. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 18:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Please see infobox. 14 languages, 9 religions, loads of flags, et cetera. Really? I only have a passing interest in this article so I wonder if some of the more regular editors have some time to spare? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 10:09, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I removed one paragraph from the lead that did not seem vital, but the article is long and the lead is actually pretty concise, in my humble opinion. I would like others who edit this article to weigh in. Amuseclio ( talk) 16:23, 2 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
There was a tag placed a number of weeks ago by an editor whose only addition ever to the Spanish Empire article was tagging it "too long." The brief discussion between myself and that editor article seems to have been archived. I have come to agree with that editor and have moved a chunk of material on the structure of the Spanish empire in the Americas to the Spanish colonization of the Americas article. I think there needs to be a larger community discussion about what the article should include. As a Latin Americanist, I find that the article has an inordinate amount of material on Spain's conflicts in Europe. The Philippines section of the article needs to be trimmed in my opinion. I understand that the Philippines often gets left out of discussions of the Spanish empire, but I think that section could be trimmed, with a link to the main article on History of the Philippines. Anyway, I would like to open discussion and I hope that others will contribute. Amuseclio ( talk) 18:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
An IP has deleted material from the article as a copyright violation, but did not indicate where the original was. I have not been able to identify what the original might have been. Does anyone have more inofrmation about this? - Donald Albury 13:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
There has been persistent edit-warring in this article in the last few days. This needs to stop. Thrash out the wording here on the talk page. If the edit-warring continues, I will lock down the article, and I can guarantee you that somebody will be unhappy with the state of the article when it is locked down. - Donald Albury 14:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Donald Albury, i am sorry you had to do this. In my case, I am simply making the same couple of suggestions again and again, (not just here btw):
1-"The spanish empire was THE most powerful empire from 1500 to 1650". This sentence is hyperbole and pov. See one article I am working on: foremost power, there is so much overlap for that period in particular that you can't have such a solid claim. It would be much more correct to say that it was one of the biggest (without saying THE biggest for sure) or that it was one of the empires described as the biggest together with others: and the same should be done for the articles of ALL the other 16th century empires that have similar claims.
2-Whatever Charles V did in his position as Holy Roman Emperor or in his other non-spanish positions should not be counted as Spanish conquest, obviously. Excuse me all but i think that it's absolutely crazy to claim that the Sack of Rome by mutinous mercenaries was a Spanish conquest of the papacy. I had to delete this twice. What Charles V did as Charles I of Castile is one thing (and what he did as Charles II of Burgundy another thing again etc etc), but the Imperial Habsburg stuff should not be confused with the Spanish Habsburg stuff. I think that's just common sense, honestly.
In short, this article should focus only on the Spanish Empire and I think that hyperboles should be avoided. Barjimoa ( talk) 00:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi:
1- The Spanish Empire was (According to most scholars) the most powerful Empire in the world during the 16th and half 17th centuries. It is not my opinion, there are numerous sources that corroborate it. Spain during that time had the so-called Golden Age precisely because of its boom as a world power. It was a Global Empire that began with its expansion in the American continent reaching globality, something that the Chinese Empire and the Ottoman Empire were light years away at that time. And the Habsburg Empire is basically a composition fragmented in the mid-16th century, it is impossible for it to be the most powerful of the time above the Spanish Empire that did not stop expanding (In power and extension) in the world with Philip II during the 16th.
You affirm that the Chinese Empire of the time and the Ottoman Empire are mentioned as equal to the Spanish Empire at that time. However, the sources you provide are not weighty or reliable, and you do it without seeking consensus. In addition, the sources you used do not contradict that the Spanish Empire was the most preeminent Empire of the 16th century AND the first half of the 17th century, you only focus on the 16th with some minority appointments. When the vast majority of sources affirm that a power was the main or the most powerful (or foremost), there is nothing wrong with the use of these expressions. An example is in the British Empire article that described it as the foremost power in the world for a century although there are some sources that match it to other powers of the time.
I propose to act according to custom and keep the original previous version. You cannot add something so ambiguous and with so little consensus in the head of the article. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 08:39, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
If Barjimoa's proposal obtains consensus or an alternative such as the expression: "According to many scholars, the Spanish Empire was the most powerful empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries" would well see the current state of the article.
However, there is currently no consensus and the current information in the article is only the Barjimoa edition. I think that until we get consensus we should go back to the previous edition. SmithGraves ( talk) 10:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I think it is reasonable to give in a dispute so as to prevent an article from being frozen and that there may not be other editions that may be beneficial.
I propose this formulation of the phrase. I think they respect both sides:
- "It was the most powerful Global Empire of the 16th and early 17th centuries" (The others are not global empires)
- "It has been described as the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries by many scholars"
- "It was arguably the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries"
There is a fairly broad consensus by historians that the Spanish Empire of the sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries was the greatest power of the time due to being a pioneer of globalization in the Age of Discoveries, Tercios dominated (until the Battle of Rocroi) the European battlefields, and the early and extensive colonization of the American continent and other parts of the world. SmithGraves ( talk) 14:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Correction: "... and first half of the 17th century"* SmithGraves ( talk) 15:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand what your point is, but I think there should be proportionality. There is much historical consensus that the Spanish Empire was the greatest power in the world at that time because it was the first (or one of the first with Portugal) Global Empire that colonized large parts of the world and won many victories victories in Europe with the "Third ", the so-called Golden Age is that. The same applies to the British Empire, it is considered the greatest power for a century although there are also some authors who have described that other powers were also.There are not many sources that say that the Ming Dynasty or the Ottoman Empire were the greatest powers in the world during the 16th and 17th centuries. SmithGraves ( talk) 17:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Barjimoa, I think you're quite confused.
The Ottoman Empire was not a Global Empire, nor was the Ming Dynasty a Global Empire. And the Habsburg Empire (where the Spanish Empire was included) broke down in the mid-16th century.
I think that your sources are not reliable or that you have not read them correctly. SmithGraves ( talk) 17:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
For example, a clear source would be this, because it says clearly and unambiguously the exact phrase: "This combination of European and non-European possesions made Spain the greatest power of the sixteenth and seventeeth century"
https://books.google.es/books?id=r4kdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2&lpg=PA2&dq=Spanish+empire+greatest+power+16th&source=bl&ots=xknWlrlWeZ&sig=ACfU3U3CeKlxB6ON3xjUStmE2a2be91sow&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjGrsWP4uLlAhXvA2MBHQ08BDE4ChDoATAGegQIAhAB#v=onepage&q=Spanish%20empire%20greatest%20power%2016th&f=false SmithGraves ( talk) 18:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Donald Albury...the decision is up to you, i guess. I have made my case and I have read that of SmithGraves. Barjimoa ( talk) 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
"I am not confused...Hoslag in his book explains that Ming China ruled a quarter of the world's population while the Ottoman Empire spanned three continents. Therefore he says that the age 1500-1750 was their global age as much as that of Spain and Portugal. He calls the Habsburg Empire the premier global empire (and he lists it as including HRE, Spain, Portugal, their colonies, Hungary etc etc ). His book appears to be pretty solid and researched to me."
The fact that the Ming Empire ruled over a quarter of the population does not mean that it is a Global Empire, because the vast majority of its population is in China. The region of China has always been a very populated area, that is a misleading fact.
The Ottoman Empire spread over 3 continents yes, but their territories are contiguous and very close to each other. By that same rule the Roman Empire is a Global Empire when it was not. A Global Empire by definition is an Empire with large overseas territories, and that is not fulfilled by the Ottoman Empire. The Spanish Empire expanded across all continents.
The Habsburg Empire was global, but I repeat, it disappeared as such in the mid-16th century. It is impossible for it to be the most powerful Empire in the 16th and 17th centuries. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:14, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Half of the sources you have used do not display well or directly do not show the exact quotation. But aside from that, I have not denied that there are any authors who have ever written that another Empire is the most powerful of "X" moment. There are also authors who believe that there were more powerful empires than the British Empire in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, but even so in their article it is mentioned that the British Empire was the foremost global empire for a century because most sources claim it was the British Empire.
I think that proportionality should be used. There are still more consensus, sources and common sense data that tip the balance towards the Spanish Empire because it was the only Global Empire (With the Portuguese). As much as there is some author who affirms in a book does not turn it into something doubtless or true. Without disrespecting the sources I see the solution of this problem in 2 ways:
1: It is specified that the Spanish Empire was the foremost GLOBAL Empire of the sixteenth century and first half of the seventeenth to distinguish it from other non-global empires such as the Turkish and Chinese.
This is the consensual definition of Global Empire: <<"Global" or "world" means that the territory under its sovereignty is spread throughout the world. The basic criterion is that when sailing in the world, the territory from the westernmost point to the easternmost point must be at least one half of the world perimeter (about 20,000 km, or 12,400 miles), "global" means Empire must pass at least 180 degrees longitude and at least 90 degrees latitude">>
2: Or, it is specified that the Spanish Empire was the most powerful Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries by many scholars.
None of the 2 options is a lie and is perfectly valid. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kansas Bear ( talk) The quotation I mentioned is in the introduction section, at the end of page 2. SmithGraves ( talk) 08:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
No, Barjimoa. The Spanish Empire remained a superpower also in the 18th century.
The most correct thing is to say that it was the largest Global Empire of the 16th century and half of the 17th century. That would not generate any contradiction. SmithGraves ( talk) 08:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Largest or most powerful* like the stated sources. SmithGraves ( talk) 09:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There are already sources that indicate that Spain was a Global Empire, and that it was also the most powerful in the 16th and mid-17th centuries.
I think we should put that and end the discussion. SmithGraves ( talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Kansas Bear ( talk), here it is specified very clearly too.
"The Spanish Empire became the foremost GLOBAL power of its time ..."
Chapter 14. Section 3: The fulfilment of the curse in the Spanish Empire.
SmithGraves ( talk) 09:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Barjimoa, you explained quite well, I have not denied that there are some authors who claim that "X" another Empire was more powerful in "X" period. That happens in almost absolutely any facet of the History.
However, the Spanish Empire is the only one that its a GLOBAL Empire. Neither the Chinese Empire nor the Ottoman were Global Empires, and the Habsburg Empire did not survive the sixteenth century, it disintegrated in the mid-sixteenth century and its globality was given by the Spanish Empire itselfs
Therefore, the only coherent way to differentiate (and proprational) is:
"The Spanish Empire was the foremost GLOBAL empire in the 16th and mid-17th"
Or
"The Spanish Empire was the foremost power in the world in the 16th and mid-17th according to many scholars" SmithGraves ( talk) 11:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Both definitions are true, good and supported with sources. SmithGraves ( talk) 11:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
"Was Spain the most powerful global empire for an uninterrupted 150 years, from 1500 to 1650?"
I answer your question: Yes, it was. I have passed several sources where it is stated that the Spanish Empire is the most powerful Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries. (Not only with Philip II)
The Habsburg Empire was almost completely formed by the Spanish Empire itself and the Iberian Union the same. That in no way contradicts something because the Spanish Empire is a major majority component of those.
The Chinese Empire and the Ottoman Empire were not global empires, and the data you provide is not at all required to be a Global Empire. A Global Empire needs overseas territories far from its Imperial capital, not "X%" of local population.
I have given in to modify the article (When it was already well) and I have proposed 2 quite realistic alternatives. We can clarify that the Spanish Empire was the most powerful Global Empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century or clarify that the Spanish Empire is described by many scholars as the most powerful empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century.
Both options are completely respectful and supported by sources. SmithGraves ( talk) 12:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
That is what I know scholars have written. Previously Cristiano Tomás told me this in this discussion: "I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers." I am fine with it too. The key difference is between "the most" and "among the most". Barjimoa ( talk) 13:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no "Global Empire" apart from the Spanish that has been described as the most powerful of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. I have already repeated it several times.
In addition to that, it is perfectly valid to say that the Spanish Empire is described according to many scholars as the foremost power of the 16th and mid-17th centuries. Because there are literally many sources that describe it in that way.
Feel free to go to the Ottoman Empire, Chinese, etc articles and add in their headings the citations you want. But this is the article of the Spanish Empire and if there are many sources that describe it as the foremost GLOBAL power there is nothing wrong about it. In fact, it has always been the usual description in this article and other articles.
I have made 2 real proposals, supported by sources (Even textually) and respecting the divergence of your authors. I think thats enough.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 14:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
No no no. I think you got it wrong. I say that you feel free to add in the article of the Ottoman Empire that some authors consider that it was the most powerful during "X" time, etc. If you provide reliable sources and there are indeed authors who says it, there are no problems to do that.
However, neither the Ottoman Empire, nor the Chinese, nor the Portuguese, nor the Dutch, nor the Indian have been described as: "The foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries"
Therefore, I see no problem in that mention in the article of the Spanish Empire. But even if that creates a problem for you I have proposed another alternative that qualifies that the Spanish Empire is described by many scholars as the foremost power of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth centuries. SmithGraves ( talk) 14:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I propose to use any of those 2 forms of description that appear textually in the sources or return to the state in which the article was always before the edit war. SmithGraves ( talk)
I find quite ineccesary and disrespectful the suggest that the status of an evangelist is incompatible with history. But I will not enter that debate.
Similarly, there are many other sources that textually support the description of the Spanish Empire. Among many others:
Page 57:
"The 16th and 17th witnessed the apogee of the Spanish Empire under the aegis of Austrians and it became the world's foremost power."
"A partir del siglo xvi, cuando la monarquía hispánica surge como la primera potencia mundial.../English: From the sixteenth century, when the Hispanic monarchy emerges as the first world power..."
https://cvc.cervantes.es/lengua/anuario/anuario_14/crespo/p01.htm
No other Global Empire has been described as the "foremost power of the sixteenth or mid-seventeenth century". I repeat to you that the Ottoman Empire and the Chinese, etc are not considered Global Empires, because it is necessary to have overseas territories to be a Global Empire. And the Habsburg Empire and the Iberian Union are fundamentally the Spanish Empire if we talk about its global character.
<<"Global" or "world" means that the territory under its sovereignty is spread throughout the world. The basic criterion is that when sailing in the world, the territory from the westernmost point to the easternmost point must be at least one half of the world perimeter (about 20,000 km, or 12,400 miles), "global" means Empire must pass at least 180 degrees longitude and at least 90 degrees latitude">>
The current state of the article is a new and provisional edition that you have added. The original state that has always remained is the one before the edit war not your last edit.
I propose to use the description that the sources support about the Spanish Empire or to clarify that it is described in this way by many scholars. Or finally return to the previous state of the article before the edit war.
For example: "The Spanish Empire has been described as the most powerful Global Empire of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century"
or
"The Spanish Empire has been described as the greatest power of the sixteenth and mid-seventeenth century by many scholars"
Both options are widely supported by sources and are respectful with your other sources because they allow to make a distinction with the rest of the Empires you have named. If not, I would agree to return to the stable version before the edit war, which is the version that has been for years.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 16:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Well if you say so. I will not enter personal assessments to third parties, or to different topics.
Anyway, before and after that source I already sent many other sources. And that Spanish website you mention is the Instituto Cervantes, the largest Institution of the Spanish language and History (Along with RAE) and is widely used as source in Wikipedia, its quite valid and composed with academics.
The most logical and unbiased way is to apply the sources. And otherwise leave things as they were before the edit war.
I say the same. I keep my last message. SmithGraves ( talk) 17:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Kansas, read well. Global power is not the same as Global Empire. What I affirm is that the Ottoman Empire, neither the Chinese were Global Empire, nor are they described as such. Look at the Wikipedia page "Global Empire"
Also, Kansas, I have sent many, many more sources apart from the one you mentioned. I'm very sorry, but I don't agree with the proposal.
The status before the editing war already had consensus (since 2015) and supported with sources.
SmithGraves ( talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Defining the Ottoman Empire as a World Empire seems to me a real madness, because it is a relatively small Empire and its territories are contiguous and close to its capital. It has no overseas territories. If you go to the Global Empire article from Wikipedia you can see that the agreed criteria are different.
If the Ottoman Empire considers it a Global Empire, then the Roman Empire that was of similar size and shape also seems like a World Empire? I think it's amazing to think about it.
But regardless of that, you have obtained a source that in my opinion describes a non-global Empire as the World Empire. Okay, so let's throw away my first proposition.
Now, what is the problem in using my second proposition? That is, to clarify that "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars".
It is a reality that there are many sources that agree that the Spanish Empire was the greatest power of this era. And by clarifying that there are many, but not all, it does not generate any problem with other sources, nor does it deny that there may be many, few or very few sources that think that another Empire was the greatest power. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 21:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Barjimoa, I would agree with your proposal, but there are many Empires with hyperbolic descriptions. Including the article of the British Empire.
What does not seem right to me is that with the Spanish Empire no such descriptions are allowed, but they are allowed with the rest. The way to proceed from Wikipedia has never been to suppress hyperbolic descriptions. Simply transcribe and apply the source.
That is why my second proposal makes a lot of sense, and obviously feel free to add the same in the Ottoman and Chinese Empire. There would not be so many editions in the 16th century empires. And I would be willing to help you edit those articles of Empires that are described as major powers of the 16th century.
Either we eliminate hyperbolic descriptions for all or add them, but something intermediate and discretionary is not a logical or criterion measure.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Regardless of whether we like it or not, if the criterion used in Wikipedia is the use of (or allow) hyperbolic phrases there is no reason to veto them in this article.
Therefore, my second proposal is much appropiate, because it is much more consistent with the used criteria. We cannot give a different treatment.
SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I tend to be cautious about what articles say in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer something along the lines of the proposal by SmithGraves above, "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars". Perhaps we could also include something to the effect that other empires of that period had larger populations, but only the Portuguese and Spanish Empires (and later, the Dutch and English Empires) stretched across oceans. - Donald Albury 04:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I think it is indisputable that the Spanish Empire was a Global Empire, I dont think there is debate in it and I maintain that the Ottoman and Chinese Empire are not Global or World Empires. However, I consider that both Donald Albury and Barjimoa's proposals are in essence and in form one of my first proposals I made at the beginning of this long debate.
I am quite satisfied with any of the 2 proposals, and I am available to help Barjimoa (if required) to apply something similar and proportional in other articles. We must wait to see the final opinion of Donald Albury on Barjimoa's proposal, but for me there is consensus with either of them. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 11:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español; Latin: Imperium Hispanicum), historically known as the Hispanic Monarchy (Spanish: Monarquía Hispánica) and as the Catholic Monarchy (Spanish: Monarquía Católica[1]), was one of the largest empires in history. From the late 15th century to the early 19th, Spain controlled a huge overseas territory in the New World, the Asian archipelago of the Philippines, what they called "The Indies" (Spanish: Las Indias) and territories in Europe, Africa and Oceania.[2] The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a description also given to the Portuguese Empire.[4] It was the foremost colonial empire of the 16th and 17th centuries according to many scholars. Becoming known as "the empire on which the sun never sets", it reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.
I would like to know the opinion of Donald Albury. But of course, it is essentially one of my first proposals. For me there is consensus with both propositions. SmithGraves ( talk • contribs) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
So...SmithGraves was a sockpuppet of JamesOredan...an user already blocked twice and with at least another sockpuppet. He had an agenda, i think. Thank you Drmies for discovering it.
Kansas Bear, you said this:
I would have to agree with Barjimoa's suggestion, "one of the most powerful empires of the world in the 16th and 17th centuries"
Cristiano Tomás, you said this:
:@ Barjimoa: seems to be making the more reasonable argument. I don't support describing the Spanish Empire as the definitive foremost power of any period, given the nature of the accuracy of that type of historiography. I support language describing it as among the most powerful global powers.
Donald Albury, you said this:
I tend to be cautious about what articles say in Wikipedia's voice. I would prefer something along the lines of the proposal by SmithGraves above, "The Spanish Empire has been described as the foremost Global Empire of the 16th and mid-17th centuries according to many scholars". Perhaps we could also include something to the effect that other empires of that period had larger populations, but only the Portuguese and Spanish Empires (and later, the Dutch and English Empires) stretched across oceans.
The current intro is:
The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a description also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It has been described as the world's most powerful empire of the 16th and 17th centuries, a description also given to other empires of the period, becoming known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reaching its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]
In light of the sources and in light of the debate, My alternative proposal is:
The Spanish Empire has been described as the first global empire in history,[3] a definition also given to the Portuguese Empire[4]. It was one of the empires described as the most powerful of the 16th and 17th centuries. The Spanish Empire became known as "the empire on which the sun never sets" and reached its maximum extension in the 18th century.[5][6][7][8][9]
I think it's a good way to put it IF you feel that a change is still necessary. Barjimoa ( talk) 19:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)