This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The map for New Spain needs to include Cost Rico as well.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.105 ( talk • contrition)
The Evangelization section gives the impression that the majority of the indigenous population became Catholics almost instantly due to forced conversions by European priests without any references for those assertions. In the early stages of colonization that would’ve been the case for a subset, not all, of the native population that inhabited the areas within or nearby the first established colonies. But in regards to the many other indigenous populations present found all over Mexico and Latin America, it’s more likely to have been a gradual process that took place over many decades and centuries. Catholicism like the Spanish language was spread primarily by Westernized biracials, a group that has outnumbered those of mostly European descent since early in the colonization period and who went on to gain the ascendancy due to being less susceptible to Old World diseases in comparison to the indigenous people that perished in great numbers as a result of lacking immunity to those diseases, rather than because of warfare.
I´m not completely sure, but I think that Venezuela was also part of New Spain before the stablishment of the Viceroyalty of New Granada.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.178.80.22 ( talk • contribs)
As of 2017-11-10 the article says, "Venezuela annexed to Viceroyalty of New Granada - 27 May 1717". Yet the map in this New Spain article claims that Venezuela was part of New Spain in 1795.
Shouldn't the map be redrawn without Venezula -- or the date changed to before 1717?
Thanks for this useful article and map. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:36, 10 November 2017 (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)
It is a fact that the Spaniards reached the British Columbia and Alaska, building forts and fighting with the Nootkas. It should be mentioned!
Check this, for example:
"El Virreinato de Nueva España fue el nombre dado por la administración pública colonial española a la región del continente americano comprendida por el actual México, más los actuales estados de California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Nuevo México, Arizona, Texas, Oregon, Washington y partes de Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma y Louisiana en los Estados Unidos de América. La parte suroeste de Columbia Británica en Canadá."
Or this, an official study from a history foundation of the autonomous government of Catalonia that explains the ventures of Catalan volunteers in Oregon and the British Columbia in the 18th century (it is in Catalan, but I guess it's easy to understand that "Els catalans a la Colúmbia Britànica al s.XVIII" means "The Catalans in the British Columbia in the 18th century").
there are no sources provided
"Quite often, rape was a factor in the reproduction of mixed-race children." No citation.
"Unfortunately this trait has never quite disappeared." Obvious bias.
"most Afromexicans prefer to be considered mestizo, since they feel more identified with this group." No citation.
Several other portions have no mention of sources, either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Salk ( talk • contribs)
"While they often held the Christian god to be an important deity because it was the god of the victorious...'
This sounds like conjecture with no citation provided. The probability of having reliable evidence of such an assertion would be very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 ( talk) 13:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
As the map clearly shows, New Spain was more than the country of Mexico. Besides including the American Southwest, it also included Central American countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama.
So... the problem is that, at the end of the article, the text starts to talk specifically about Mexico.
There are a couple different ways to fix the problem...
-- Richard 07:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be little research in the making of the article, and even in the commentaries. First of all, New Spain didn't contain all the territories named in the article: the viceroy had certain authority over Central America, the Caribbean islands and the Philippines, but they weren't attached to New Spain. Venezuela had a governor, and was more related to the Viceregal of Peru. A map showing New Spain's territory would have to shade only Mexico (without Chiapas), and U.S. Southwest. Then, there's no mistake if New Spain is confussed with Mexico, yet the article has a tremendous lack of information, and lies very much on the colonization subject.
In other topic, criollos were allowed in the upper levels of government, due to the fact that the Spanish Crown used to sell oficios along the entire 16th and 17th centuries, in a practice known as oficios vendibles y renunciables. Even if they couldn't occupy viceroy's office, they took numerous oidores positions. Mark A. Burkholder and Dewitt S. Chandler have a very reliable study on that subject.
-- A.R.I. 03:08, 22 January 2007
The Map should have in dark green (part of the empire) Costa Rica, it is shaded down to Nicaragua, but Costa Rica was part of the empire as well.
Is the map really anachronistic? It seems to depict New Spain as it existed after the recovery of Florida in 1783 and before the sale of Louisiana in 1800 (or perhaps the signature of Pinckney's treaty in 1795 and the abandonment of claims to modern Mississippi and Alabama.) Should we perhaps indicate it as a map of New Spain in 1783? john k 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, except that it shows western Santo Domingo and Jamaica as part of the viceroyalty. It seems like it would be better to upload a new map that takes them out, and say it's a map of New Spain in 1783, at its greatest geographical extent, than to have a map that doesn't depict what New Spain looked like at any given time. john k 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
•Also about the map: it says in the article that Venezuela was a part of New Spain, but Venezuela is not shaded on the map. Dr bab 06:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article puts too much of an emfasis on Mexico. What about all the other Latin American countries, icluding the Philipines. None this is even mentioned in this article. This article needs to expand to mention other Latin American countries, including the Philipines.
The flag reported as the flag of New Spain is not so. This flag is known as "Cruz de Borgoña" ( Cross of Burgundy), and, according to Santiago Dotor, from Flags of the World, was the Spanish military flag from the 16th century up to 1843, when the colours of the 1785 War Ensign were adopted for use on land too. So it may have been used in New Spain as well as in any other territory within the Spanish Empire as flag of the Army. Archael Tzaraath 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Bourbon reforms section of this article doesn't really discuss anything specifically related to the Bourbon reforms and rather concentrates on political and military conflicts during the period. Attention should be given to changes in the civil leadership (particularly the appointment of peninsular spaniards instead of criollos in high positions) and the changes in culture that accompanied these reforms. I do not have particular expertise in this matter, otherwise I would have added these changes myself. 128.120.58.142 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This can be solved by renaming the section the "Bourbon Years." There is an article on the Bourbon reforms, which could be Wikilinked. TriniMuñoz ( talk) 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratch my previous comment above. I saw the parallel this section has with the one for the VR of Peru, and thought it useful to keep. I incorporated a short didscussion of the Bourbon Reforms and a Wikilink to the main article on it. I gave the military section its own subheading and made a seguey into it by mentioning just how important miltirary conflicts were in pushing the crown to implement its reforms. TriniMuñoz ( talk) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Anselmocisneros 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This article through and through is told from the perspective of the colonizers and minimizes the brutality against indigenous folks. Lists of conquistadores, dates, conquests, trade routes. Almost nothing about how they conquered, or what life was like for the conquered-- that is, most people who lived there. These topics are minimized and relegated to the "Criticism of the Spanish Presense", while they should be the main thrust of the article. Nlevitt 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Isidoros47 ( talk) 20:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up the white american page and removing material that isn't related to groups' perceived whiteness (which is what the article there is about). There was a history of Spanish exploration in the United States on that page. I'm pasting it here so it can be merged into this article if necessary. Calliopejen1 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Hispanic presence in the United States is the second longest, after the Native American. Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Hernán Cortés in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru, but Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. The first confirmed landing in the continental U.S. was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida.
Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi River, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the east coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Maine, and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon. From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a black Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California.
In 1540, De Soto undertook an extensive exploration of the present U.S., and in the same year, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona- Mexico border and traveled as far as central Kansas.
Other Spanish explorers of the U.S. make up a long list that includes among others, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, Pánfilo de Narváez, Sebastián Vizcaíno, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Gaspar de Portolà, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Tristán de Luna y Arellano and Juan de Oñate. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island.
The Spanish settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Santa Fe, New Mexico, also predates Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth Colony. Later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just a few. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607.
Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans. As late as 1783, at the end of the American Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska).
From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the correct map that best describes the former territories of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. If any users dispute the issue, please discuss it here before making any changes. Thank you! -- Ramírez 06:20 am, December 6, 2007 (UTC)
The map is bad because it doesn't represent the territories of New Spain at any one time. The territories in North America are those it held between 1783 and 1803. But it also shows them holding Jamaica and Saint Domingue, which were lost in the seventeenth century. Maps should represent territory held at a given moment in history, or they are misleading. john k ( talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a good map of New Spain. Something like this. Can anyone find one we can use? Kingturtle ( talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Found this:
That's so wrong I don't have time to rejig it right now; basically at its maximum Spanish possessions, as claimed, in the Pacific Northwest extended to Cook Sound or the longitude of Mount Saint Elias, can't remember which. This overlap with Russian claims was resolved by the Russo-Spanish Treaty that established the 42nd parallel as the division of their interests (though Fort Ross was built south of it afterwards). the Nootka Crisis was extremely complex and had more to do with Spain vs. Britain on the world stage than directly affecting New Spain, although effectively by the conventions Spain agreed to the rights of other nations to partake in the trade and exploration of the entire coast, and also gave Spain a way to bow out of Nootka Sound, which was a distant and expensive post to maintain vs. Monterey, which is where the North Pacific HQ was withdrawn to (Nootka had been a field-post out of San Blas). Fort San Miguel was the only physical outpost, but " acts of taking possesion" were staged all the way up to Valdez, Alaska, at many points along the "Oregon to BC" coastline. There were no British settlements at the time in what is now Oregon; it may be argued that Nootka Sound was in the Oregon Country, but the latter name or concept hadn't even been come up with yet...nor British Columbia either of course). There's not much on the Spanish era in teh Pacific Northwest here; the relevant time-section is about Louisiana et al...I'll see what I can add about what Nootka means, but there's a whole section waiting to be written here on the various captains and explorations and the circumtances of how Spain withdrew from claims to Alaska all the way back to California....This was also New Spain ,at least in cotntemporary Spanish governmental eyes (which as the point of the Nootka Crisis, on their end...) Skookum1 ( talk) 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are some major problems with the map, File:New Spain.svg, and its caption: "A map of the Viceroyalty of New Spain at its zenith. (Light green denotes territory claimed but never effectively controlled.)"
I only just noticed because the older PNG version was replaced with an SVG version. That in itself is a good thing. But note that both maps were made based on File:Spanish Empire.png, and that page notes that there is a dispute over its accuracy, see talk page. I can't read most of the talk page, but I can see obvious problems with the map. First, light green shows supposedly shows "territory claimed but never effectively controlled", yet Spanish claims reached much farther into Alaska. Formal ceremonies of possession were performed as far as Unalaska Island in the Aleutian Islands. Beyond possession ceremonies, the Spanish claim was basically the whole of western North America. Spain never defined the northern limit of its claim, but at least made serious efforts to secure "Alaska", at a time when the full size of Alaska was not known. Second, if light green shows territory claimed but never controlled, then the dark green must be for territory "effectively controlled", right? Yet the dark green reached up the coast to the Olympic Peninsula. Spain never controlled the coast north of San Francisco (except a small area in Nootka Sound). The dark green extends broadly up the center of the continent. I suppose this is the Louisiana Territory as defined by the United States after the Louisiana Purchase (under France and Spain Louisiana was not well defined). Leaving aside the map showing Louisiana ending at the 49th parallel, Spain never came close to "effectively controlling" most of this region. That is unless "effective control" includes territories ceded by treaty to other nations, as with Louisiana. But if that is the case then Spanish effective control west of Louisiana should by bounded by the Adams–Onís Treaty lines. Whichever way, the map and caption should be edited so they are not essentially self-contradictory. It is bizarre to show Utah, for example, as "claimed but not effectively controlled" but North Dakota, Puget Sound, the Olympic Peninsula, and the coast of Oregon as "effectively controlled". Pfly ( talk) 09:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The information about the administrative structure of New Spain is confusing. Considering this article and the spanish one i found capitania generals, (autonomous) kingdoms, provincias, intendancias, audiencias, gobernaciones as terms for units. I didn't find out if they existed side by side (equal but with different names) or if one unit consisted of another class/category of units. Also the map doesn't help, on the contrary. Maybe someone can produce relief.-- Severino ( talk) 10:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking at the infobox under "today part of" and Kansas is missing even though it's shaded in the map. Is this a mistake or is there a reason for this? -- Bentendo24 ( talk) 04:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't need the title "Viceroyalty of New Spain". "New Spain" is simpler and a much more common term for it, and there's nothing else by the title that this would be confused with.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The coat of arms of colony of Spain never used the Greater coat of arms of King/Emperor Charles V. instead the colonial government used the Lesser Coat of arms of the Monarch. -- Oren neu dag ( talk) 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
1821. Con la firma de los Tratados de Córdoba deja de tener vigencia el estandarte virreinal o de la dominación española, el cual ondeó en la Nueva España desde el siglo XVII. El estandarte es un lienzo de seda cuadrado, de color pardo leonado, con la cruz de San Andrés al cenro, de color morado.
(...) atravesado diagonalmente por dos brazos que formaba la cruz de San Andrés, también de seda y de color morado. (...) Este estandarte virreinal duró como símbolo de la Nueva España hasta el ya citado 24 de agosto de 1821 (...) Translation: (...) Crossed diagonally by two arms forming the cross of St. Andrew, also of silk and purple. (...) This viceroyal banner lasted as a symbol of colonial New Spain to the aforementioned 24 August 1821 (...) "
Deja de ordenar el estandarte virreinal.
El 24 de agosto de 1821, con la firma de los Tratados de Córdoba, dejó de tener vigencia elestandarte virreinal o de la dominación española, el que ondeó en la Nueva España desde elsiglo XVII; lienzo de seda en forma de cuadrado, de color pardo leonado, con la cruz de SanAndrés al centro, de color morado. En el siglo XVII fue cuando empezó a usarse la bandera específicamente trazada para la Nueva España.
Se hizo un estandarte con un cuadro rectangular de seda de color pardo o café, y una cruz aspada o cruz de San Andrés que cruzaba el cuadro y cuyos brazos terminaban con los escudos de la Ciudad de México. (...)
La bandera que casi por dos siglos fue la insignia de la Nueva España, se conserva en el Museo Nacional de Historia.
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |fecha=
ignored (|date=
suggested) (
help)Los actuales Estados norteamericanos de Alabama y Florida llevan como banderas estaduales -como lo indicáramos anteriormente- las tradicionales banderas españolas de fondo blanco con la roja cruz de San Andrés superpuesta, ya que hasta 1819 formaron parte de España.
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |issues=
ignored (
help)Durante el reinado de la Casa de Austria, en virtud de la unión de Doña Juana la Loca con Don Felipe el Hermoso, la enseña consistía, por primera vez, en la emblemática Cruz de San Andrés o Aspas de Borgoña, colocada en un lienzo blanco o rojo pálido, con los atributos de la Dinastía, y en el centro de la misma las armas de España (25). Al advenimiento de los Borbones, las banderas pierden el carácter personal o familiar que tuvieron hasta la llegada al trono de Felipe V (1700), y la nueva bandera ostanta las flores de lis, aunque permanecen las Aspas de Borgoña. (...)
(25) Señala Rodríguez Lizcano que las banderas que prevalecen en España son las siguientes: siglos XV y XVI: blanca y Cruz Roja de San Andrés; siglo XVII, primera mitad: rojas; siglo XVII, segunda mitad, colores diversos y Cruz de Borgoña; siglo XVIII: blancas con la Cruz de Borgoña. José Luis Rodríguez Lizcano "La bandera roja y gualda: orígenes e historia", en Revista Internacional de Protocolo, núm. 9, p. 51.
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And the Castile pendon was outdated and was not a symbol in New Spain, so let's stop adding it everywhere:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 05:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Americas was a part of crown of Castile, not Aragon. See talk in crown of Castile.-- Santos30 ( talk) 08:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 21:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 05:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal of consensus:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
First, that's the flag of revolutionaries, not the flag of New Spain. File:BANDERA_VIRREINAL_NOVOHISPANA.svg is nearer to the estandarte vicerreal, with the correct coat fo arms. I see that you altered Flag of Mexico to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy....
Second, you put that coat of arms everywhere in replacement of the more common version with the Granada symbol. You asked for the creatio of that symbol by providing a few dubious sources, so I don't trust that coat. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 13:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 14:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You said twice that they are symbols of the insurgency. There were not insurgents in XVI, XVII or XVIII Century. The eagle, nopal and snake are symbols of Tenocthtitlan, and they were used by the colonial authorities and colonial institutions since XVI Century [23]. Of course the insurgents, Morelos or even Iturbide, used those symbols, and now are used in the flag of Mexico. But if you think they are only symbols of the insurgency you are completly wrong. Now I understand why you think the Cross of Burgundy only represents the Carlism. Jaontiveros ( talk) 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
...del principio del águila y la tuna que trae por armas hoy en sus banderas...
— Bernardo de Balbuena (1561-1627)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 05:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let´s see if I've got this straight, when you say: "There are not certain and unequivocal description if 'Estandarte virreinal' is a royal flag or not", that means nobody found a source to confirm that 'viceroyal banner' was used like a 'viceroyal flag' in New Spain? or, are you looking for a source to confirm that flag with Cross of Burgundy was used in New Spain? Jaontiveros ( talk) 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 23:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I say one more time: my proposal is to put again the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy which is a very well known flag to identify the Spanish Empire (and New Spain) and removed any coat of arms. The red and yellow flag that you, or someone else, added into the infobox (
[25]) was a naval pavilion (my mistake: I wanted to say
pabellón naval = flag etiquette used at the stern of the ships) created over the last years of the viceroyalty, it was not used by the infantry in New Spain as the Cross of Burgundy was, and it was not placed in the viceroyal palace like the Cross of Burgundy was. In the other hand, several cities of New Spain had their own coat of arms (you can see
here at least 13 differents coats of arms of those cities) and there were many kings and
many coats in the Spanish Empire over three hundred years, in order to be neutral is better to remove anyone. I did not ask you anything about Aragon, is not necessary that you yell me anything about that with big and black letters (?). I asked you four questions that you have refused to answer.
Jaontiveros (
talk) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a very long discussion but you do not incorporate nothing of my proposal. None a word of what I have shown with references. Nothing. -- Santos30 ( talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
First that all, you must learn to distinguish a banner of a flag, they are not the same. You will understand the differences by reading the articles
flag and
banner. You are very confused when you say that the last banner of New Spain was red and yellow (roja y gualda). That's not true, the red and yellow flag was not the viceroyal banner, to be exact: that red and yellow flag was a pabellón naval, a flag etiquette used at the stern of the ships. This pabellón naval was used in some forts in coastal cities too. This flag was never representative of New Spain, even more, when it was used in Veracruz in 1822 or 1824, Mexico and Central America were already independent countries. By the way, this red and white flag etiquette became the first national flag of Spain, but that happened until 1843. Enric Naval has already told you before, anyway, there are many sources where you can read the history of the flag of Spain:
[33]
[34].
The viceroyal banner changed over three hundred years. At the very beginning the banner was red, green and even purple
[35]
[36]. In the days of Hernán Cortés a celebration wq=%22Estandarte%20virreinal%22%20amarilloas established, it was named
Paseo del Pendón, which took place every August 13 (San Hipólito's Day) in order to remember the fall of Tenochtilan. Initially the banner of Hernán Cortés was used on the celebration but in 1531
[37] it was replaced by the banner with the coat of arms of Mexico city in one side and the coats of arms of
Charles I of Spain in the other side. Over the years, the banner changed. The last Paseo del Pendón was held in 1820
[38]. Today this custom is celebrated in Chilpancingo
[39]. As I said before, the viceroyal banner had the coat of arms of Mexico City in 1538,of course sometimes had the royal coat too, sometimes the coat of arms of Mexico City had the snake and eagle, it changed over the years. The viceroyal banner accompanied the viceroy anywhere to announce his presence and it has usually placed in a balcony of the viceroyal palace. The last viceroyal banner was withdrawn from viceroyal palace in August 24, 1821, after the
Treaty of Córdoba was signed.
You are making a big mistake when you say that
this image was the flag of the council of city of Mexico (?), that image is precisely the viceroyal banner withdrawn from the viceroyal palace, it even has a square shape (!). Please read carefully the same source at the National Institute of Historical Studies of the Revolutions of Mexico where the image was taken, or read other sources where it is described:
There are many sources that describe the viceroy banner of New Spain with the Cross of Burgundy and with the coats of arms of Mexico City. There are some sources (
like this one) that even say the viceroyal banner was the "national flag" of New Spain, but that is not true. There was no national flag of Spain and there was no national flag of New Spain, actually, the viceroyal banner was more similar to a
Presidential Standard or a
Royal Standard.
You are misunderstanding the royal decree of Philip II of Spain (1596) because you are not reading completly
your source, that decree is talking about the personal coats of arms of viceroys, presidents, governors, admirals or captains ("...corregir el abuso de ostentar blasones particulares para mantener la pureza legal de aquellas...") Of course, the personal coats of arms of admirals and captains could not use on the ships of the Spanish Navy. Of course, the personal coat of arms of the viceroy could not add at the viceroyal banner, and of course the personal coat of arms or the viceroy could not use in official events . The viceroyal banner could only share the royal arms with the coat of arms of Mexico City (given by royal decree too). Perhaps in some years the viceroyal banner did not have the coat of arms of Mexico City, but we do have evidence and sources to confirm that the viceroyal banner had the coat of arms of Mexico city in XVI, XVIII and XIX centuries. I repeat: since 1531 the viceroyal banner had the coat of arms of Mexico City (since 1538 with the motto Non in multitudine exercitus consistit victoria, sed in voluntate Dei) in one side and in the other side it had the royal arms of Charles I (of course, it never had a San Hipólito image) and in the House of Bourbon´s period, since 1700 up to 1821, the viceroyal banner had not one but four coats of arms of Mexico City in the tip of each arm of the Cross of Burgundy; we don't have information if the royal arms still remained in the other side of the banner during the Bourbon's period.
This is correct, actually the coat of arms of Mexico City was the emblem of the jurisdiction of New Spain, which is why it was used in the viceroyal banner. One more reason to select this coat of arms to identify, in a particular way, the viceroyalty of New Spain.
Jaontiveros (
talk) 05:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Symbols of Spain could be alone in the template. But symbols of Mexico must to be with the arms of Spain in the template, in the flag or coat of arms. Jaontiveros you insists (4º) in do not incorporate nothing of my proposal.-- Santos30 ( talk) 10:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This is incredible. Santos30 was already told months ago in the Spanish wikipedia that the Corss of Burgundy was the only flag that could be called representative of the Spanish colonies. He has been shown additional sources here in the English wikipedia. But by edit warring he has managed to keep anachronical coats of arms and flags in the articles about Spanish colonies. Santos30 is the only user that doesn't agree that the most adequate option is to use the Cross of Burgundy as flag and remove the coats of arms. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Today we can see the the flag of conqueror Pizarro. It is not flag of Burgundy. Today we can see the flag of Viceroyalty of Perú in the battle of Ayacucho. It is not flag of Burgundy. The fortress of Callao have same as flag of all spanish fortress and navy around the world. Red and Yellow. Who say that "Burgundy was the most representative flag of the Spanish colonies"? No body. No references.
-- 88.27.63.130 ( talk) 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It says "The Viceroy commissioned Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo in the first Spanish exploration up the Pacific Ocean along the western coast of the Las Californias Province in 1542–1543."
But when was Las Californias Province established? Eldizzino ( talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed three original ( WP:OR) maps containing numerous errors:
The information these maps intended to convey is important; better maps are available and would be welcome. WCCasey ( talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an error. New Spain was not a kingdom. There were no kings of New Spain. It was always a viceroyalty, a specific political entity subordinate to the King of Spain. Furthermore, it's ludicrous to say that it was not a colony. It was in fact colonized by the Spanish and never independent of Spain. The article requires editing to clarify all this. Tmangray ( talk) 03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I click anywhere on the page, I get linked to a Twitch stream. I made a Google search, and it seems that this kind of vandalism has been done before... - VulpesVulpes42 ( talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please add the date range to the heading, "Economy during the Habsburg era"? It would make it easier to understand. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Links in the middle of the page seem to be placed in backwards. Can someone fix it? Jordf32123 ( talk) 01:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You mention 1419 and 1420 as years in the summary section for the establishment of the vice royalty of New Spain. New Spain is considered to be by and large in the Americas plus Oceania. How can that year be right if 1492 is commonly referred to as the year for Columbus discovery of the Americas? The vice royalty would had to be formed before the discovery ... I think (might be wrong as I am not to deep into that period) that we have to change it to 1519 and 1520 respectively. To the owner of the page: Please find the right date and fix NormanBuck ( talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
New Spain → Viceroyalty of New Spain – Per WP: CONSISTENT, this is the only one out of the 4 Viceroyalties, the others being aptly named Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, Viceroyalty of New Granada, and Viceroyalty of Peru that does not have "Viceroyalty'" on it's title so I think it should be consistent with the other article titles. Please let me know what you think, thanks! PyroFloe ( talk) 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: you added this ref name last year, but forgot to fill in the definition. Could you add your source info there? Thanks! -- Fyrael ( talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to ask that the flag be changed; it seems that has been argued about enough already. I am asking, however, that the flag be placed alongside the coat of arms in the same box, rather than the flag have its own box. No other country articles on Wikipedia use this format, and it looks disorganized.
TLDR: Place flag alongside Coat of Arms in the same box.
This message applies to any other article on Spanish colonies.
296cherry ( talk) 17:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed some parts of the article use the term "Indians", and I know its referring to indigenous people, but I thought some readers could mistake this to mean people from India since the context doesn't always make it immediately clear. I was wondering if we should standardize to say indigenous people throughout the article, or do we prefer it the current way even though its inconsistent? There is probably a relevant guideline but I can't remember it. Pythagimedes ( talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is the map in the infobox described as anachronistic? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The map for New Spain needs to include Cost Rico as well.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.235.153.105 ( talk • contrition)
The Evangelization section gives the impression that the majority of the indigenous population became Catholics almost instantly due to forced conversions by European priests without any references for those assertions. In the early stages of colonization that would’ve been the case for a subset, not all, of the native population that inhabited the areas within or nearby the first established colonies. But in regards to the many other indigenous populations present found all over Mexico and Latin America, it’s more likely to have been a gradual process that took place over many decades and centuries. Catholicism like the Spanish language was spread primarily by Westernized biracials, a group that has outnumbered those of mostly European descent since early in the colonization period and who went on to gain the ascendancy due to being less susceptible to Old World diseases in comparison to the indigenous people that perished in great numbers as a result of lacking immunity to those diseases, rather than because of warfare.
I´m not completely sure, but I think that Venezuela was also part of New Spain before the stablishment of the Viceroyalty of New Granada.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.178.80.22 ( talk • contribs)
As of 2017-11-10 the article says, "Venezuela annexed to Viceroyalty of New Granada - 27 May 1717". Yet the map in this New Spain article claims that Venezuela was part of New Spain in 1795.
Shouldn't the map be redrawn without Venezula -- or the date changed to before 1717?
Thanks for this useful article and map. DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:36, 10 November 2017 (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)
It is a fact that the Spaniards reached the British Columbia and Alaska, building forts and fighting with the Nootkas. It should be mentioned!
Check this, for example:
"El Virreinato de Nueva España fue el nombre dado por la administración pública colonial española a la región del continente americano comprendida por el actual México, más los actuales estados de California, Nevada, Colorado, Utah, Nuevo México, Arizona, Texas, Oregon, Washington y partes de Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Kansas, Oklahoma y Louisiana en los Estados Unidos de América. La parte suroeste de Columbia Británica en Canadá."
Or this, an official study from a history foundation of the autonomous government of Catalonia that explains the ventures of Catalan volunteers in Oregon and the British Columbia in the 18th century (it is in Catalan, but I guess it's easy to understand that "Els catalans a la Colúmbia Britànica al s.XVIII" means "The Catalans in the British Columbia in the 18th century").
there are no sources provided
"Quite often, rape was a factor in the reproduction of mixed-race children." No citation.
"Unfortunately this trait has never quite disappeared." Obvious bias.
"most Afromexicans prefer to be considered mestizo, since they feel more identified with this group." No citation.
Several other portions have no mention of sources, either.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonas Salk ( talk • contribs)
"While they often held the Christian god to be an important deity because it was the god of the victorious...'
This sounds like conjecture with no citation provided. The probability of having reliable evidence of such an assertion would be very low. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 ( talk) 13:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
As the map clearly shows, New Spain was more than the country of Mexico. Besides including the American Southwest, it also included Central American countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Panama.
So... the problem is that, at the end of the article, the text starts to talk specifically about Mexico.
There are a couple different ways to fix the problem...
-- Richard 07:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be little research in the making of the article, and even in the commentaries. First of all, New Spain didn't contain all the territories named in the article: the viceroy had certain authority over Central America, the Caribbean islands and the Philippines, but they weren't attached to New Spain. Venezuela had a governor, and was more related to the Viceregal of Peru. A map showing New Spain's territory would have to shade only Mexico (without Chiapas), and U.S. Southwest. Then, there's no mistake if New Spain is confussed with Mexico, yet the article has a tremendous lack of information, and lies very much on the colonization subject.
In other topic, criollos were allowed in the upper levels of government, due to the fact that the Spanish Crown used to sell oficios along the entire 16th and 17th centuries, in a practice known as oficios vendibles y renunciables. Even if they couldn't occupy viceroy's office, they took numerous oidores positions. Mark A. Burkholder and Dewitt S. Chandler have a very reliable study on that subject.
-- A.R.I. 03:08, 22 January 2007
The Map should have in dark green (part of the empire) Costa Rica, it is shaded down to Nicaragua, but Costa Rica was part of the empire as well.
Is the map really anachronistic? It seems to depict New Spain as it existed after the recovery of Florida in 1783 and before the sale of Louisiana in 1800 (or perhaps the signature of Pinckney's treaty in 1795 and the abandonment of claims to modern Mississippi and Alabama.) Should we perhaps indicate it as a map of New Spain in 1783? john k 01:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, except that it shows western Santo Domingo and Jamaica as part of the viceroyalty. It seems like it would be better to upload a new map that takes them out, and say it's a map of New Spain in 1783, at its greatest geographical extent, than to have a map that doesn't depict what New Spain looked like at any given time. john k 01:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
•Also about the map: it says in the article that Venezuela was a part of New Spain, but Venezuela is not shaded on the map. Dr bab 06:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
This article puts too much of an emfasis on Mexico. What about all the other Latin American countries, icluding the Philipines. None this is even mentioned in this article. This article needs to expand to mention other Latin American countries, including the Philipines.
The flag reported as the flag of New Spain is not so. This flag is known as "Cruz de Borgoña" ( Cross of Burgundy), and, according to Santiago Dotor, from Flags of the World, was the Spanish military flag from the 16th century up to 1843, when the colours of the 1785 War Ensign were adopted for use on land too. So it may have been used in New Spain as well as in any other territory within the Spanish Empire as flag of the Army. Archael Tzaraath 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
The Bourbon reforms section of this article doesn't really discuss anything specifically related to the Bourbon reforms and rather concentrates on political and military conflicts during the period. Attention should be given to changes in the civil leadership (particularly the appointment of peninsular spaniards instead of criollos in high positions) and the changes in culture that accompanied these reforms. I do not have particular expertise in this matter, otherwise I would have added these changes myself. 128.120.58.142 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
This can be solved by renaming the section the "Bourbon Years." There is an article on the Bourbon reforms, which could be Wikilinked. TriniMuñoz ( talk) 08:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Scratch my previous comment above. I saw the parallel this section has with the one for the VR of Peru, and thought it useful to keep. I incorporated a short didscussion of the Bourbon Reforms and a Wikilink to the main article on it. I gave the military section its own subheading and made a seguey into it by mentioning just how important miltirary conflicts were in pushing the crown to implement its reforms. TriniMuñoz ( talk) 18:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Anselmocisneros 20:16, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
This article through and through is told from the perspective of the colonizers and minimizes the brutality against indigenous folks. Lists of conquistadores, dates, conquests, trade routes. Almost nothing about how they conquered, or what life was like for the conquered-- that is, most people who lived there. These topics are minimized and relegated to the "Criticism of the Spanish Presense", while they should be the main thrust of the article. Nlevitt 18:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Isidoros47 ( talk) 20:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm cleaning up the white american page and removing material that isn't related to groups' perceived whiteness (which is what the article there is about). There was a history of Spanish exploration in the United States on that page. I'm pasting it here so it can be merged into this article if necessary. Calliopejen1 18:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
The Hispanic presence in the United States is the second longest, after the Native American. Most Americans associate the early Spanish in this hemisphere with Hernán Cortés in Mexico and Francisco Pizarro in Peru, but Spaniards pioneered the present-day United States, too. The first confirmed landing in the continental U.S. was by a Spaniard, Juan Ponce de León, who landed in 1513 at a lush shore he christened La Florida.
Within three decades of Ponce de León's landing, the Spanish became the first Europeans to reach the Appalachian Mountains, the Mississippi River, the Grand Canyon and the Great Plains. Spanish ships sailed along the east coast, penetrating to present-day Bangor, Maine, and up the Pacific Coast as far as Oregon. From 1528 to 1536, four castaways from a Spanish expedition, including a black Moor, journeyed all the way from Florida to the Gulf of California.
In 1540, De Soto undertook an extensive exploration of the present U.S., and in the same year, Francisco Vázquez de Coronado led 2,000 Spaniards and Mexican Indians across today's Arizona- Mexico border and traveled as far as central Kansas.
Other Spanish explorers of the U.S. make up a long list that includes among others, Lucas Vásquez de Ayllón, Pánfilo de Narváez, Sebastián Vizcaíno, Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, Gaspar de Portolà, Pedro Menéndez de Avilés, Álvar Núñez Cabeza de Vaca, Tristán de Luna y Arellano and Juan de Oñate. In all, Spaniards probed half of today's lower 48 states before the first English tried to colonize, at Roanoke Island.
The Spanish settled, creating the first permanent European settlement in the continental United States at St. Augustine, Florida, in 1565. Santa Fe, New Mexico, also predates Jamestown, Virginia, and Plymouth Colony. Later came Spanish settlements in San Antonio, Tucson, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco, to name just a few. The Spanish even established a Jesuit mission in Virginia's Chesapeake Bay 37 years before the founding of Jamestown in 1607.
Two iconic American stories have Spanish antecedents, too. Almost 80 years before John Smith's rescue by Pocahontas, a man by the name of Juan Ortiz told of his remarkably similar rescue from execution by an Indian girl. Spaniards also held a thanksgiving, 56 years before the Pilgrims, when they feasted near St. Augustine with Florida Indians, probably on stewed pork and garbanzo beans. As late as 1783, at the end of the American Revolutionary War, Spain held claim to roughly half of today's continental United States (in 1775, Spanish ships even reached Alaska).
From 1819 to 1848, the United States and its army increased the nation's area by roughly a third at Spanish and Mexican expense, including three of today's four most populous states: California, Texas and Florida. Hispanics became the first American citizens in the newly acquired Southwest territory and remained a majority in several states until the 20th century.
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 05:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
This is the correct map that best describes the former territories of the Viceroyalty of New Spain. If any users dispute the issue, please discuss it here before making any changes. Thank you! -- Ramírez 06:20 am, December 6, 2007 (UTC)
The map is bad because it doesn't represent the territories of New Spain at any one time. The territories in North America are those it held between 1783 and 1803. But it also shows them holding Jamaica and Saint Domingue, which were lost in the seventeenth century. Maps should represent territory held at a given moment in history, or they are misleading. john k ( talk) 18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a good map of New Spain. Something like this. Can anyone find one we can use? Kingturtle ( talk) 15:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Found this:
That's so wrong I don't have time to rejig it right now; basically at its maximum Spanish possessions, as claimed, in the Pacific Northwest extended to Cook Sound or the longitude of Mount Saint Elias, can't remember which. This overlap with Russian claims was resolved by the Russo-Spanish Treaty that established the 42nd parallel as the division of their interests (though Fort Ross was built south of it afterwards). the Nootka Crisis was extremely complex and had more to do with Spain vs. Britain on the world stage than directly affecting New Spain, although effectively by the conventions Spain agreed to the rights of other nations to partake in the trade and exploration of the entire coast, and also gave Spain a way to bow out of Nootka Sound, which was a distant and expensive post to maintain vs. Monterey, which is where the North Pacific HQ was withdrawn to (Nootka had been a field-post out of San Blas). Fort San Miguel was the only physical outpost, but " acts of taking possesion" were staged all the way up to Valdez, Alaska, at many points along the "Oregon to BC" coastline. There were no British settlements at the time in what is now Oregon; it may be argued that Nootka Sound was in the Oregon Country, but the latter name or concept hadn't even been come up with yet...nor British Columbia either of course). There's not much on the Spanish era in teh Pacific Northwest here; the relevant time-section is about Louisiana et al...I'll see what I can add about what Nootka means, but there's a whole section waiting to be written here on the various captains and explorations and the circumtances of how Spain withdrew from claims to Alaska all the way back to California....This was also New Spain ,at least in cotntemporary Spanish governmental eyes (which as the point of the Nootka Crisis, on their end...) Skookum1 ( talk) 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
There are some major problems with the map, File:New Spain.svg, and its caption: "A map of the Viceroyalty of New Spain at its zenith. (Light green denotes territory claimed but never effectively controlled.)"
I only just noticed because the older PNG version was replaced with an SVG version. That in itself is a good thing. But note that both maps were made based on File:Spanish Empire.png, and that page notes that there is a dispute over its accuracy, see talk page. I can't read most of the talk page, but I can see obvious problems with the map. First, light green shows supposedly shows "territory claimed but never effectively controlled", yet Spanish claims reached much farther into Alaska. Formal ceremonies of possession were performed as far as Unalaska Island in the Aleutian Islands. Beyond possession ceremonies, the Spanish claim was basically the whole of western North America. Spain never defined the northern limit of its claim, but at least made serious efforts to secure "Alaska", at a time when the full size of Alaska was not known. Second, if light green shows territory claimed but never controlled, then the dark green must be for territory "effectively controlled", right? Yet the dark green reached up the coast to the Olympic Peninsula. Spain never controlled the coast north of San Francisco (except a small area in Nootka Sound). The dark green extends broadly up the center of the continent. I suppose this is the Louisiana Territory as defined by the United States after the Louisiana Purchase (under France and Spain Louisiana was not well defined). Leaving aside the map showing Louisiana ending at the 49th parallel, Spain never came close to "effectively controlling" most of this region. That is unless "effective control" includes territories ceded by treaty to other nations, as with Louisiana. But if that is the case then Spanish effective control west of Louisiana should by bounded by the Adams–Onís Treaty lines. Whichever way, the map and caption should be edited so they are not essentially self-contradictory. It is bizarre to show Utah, for example, as "claimed but not effectively controlled" but North Dakota, Puget Sound, the Olympic Peninsula, and the coast of Oregon as "effectively controlled". Pfly ( talk) 09:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
The information about the administrative structure of New Spain is confusing. Considering this article and the spanish one i found capitania generals, (autonomous) kingdoms, provincias, intendancias, audiencias, gobernaciones as terms for units. I didn't find out if they existed side by side (equal but with different names) or if one unit consisted of another class/category of units. Also the map doesn't help, on the contrary. Maybe someone can produce relief.-- Severino ( talk) 10:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I was looking at the infobox under "today part of" and Kansas is missing even though it's shaded in the map. Is this a mistake or is there a reason for this? -- Bentendo24 ( talk) 04:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
We don't need the title "Viceroyalty of New Spain". "New Spain" is simpler and a much more common term for it, and there's nothing else by the title that this would be confused with.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Nomination here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
The coat of arms of colony of Spain never used the Greater coat of arms of King/Emperor Charles V. instead the colonial government used the Lesser Coat of arms of the Monarch. -- Oren neu dag ( talk) 19:57, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
1821. Con la firma de los Tratados de Córdoba deja de tener vigencia el estandarte virreinal o de la dominación española, el cual ondeó en la Nueva España desde el siglo XVII. El estandarte es un lienzo de seda cuadrado, de color pardo leonado, con la cruz de San Andrés al cenro, de color morado.
(...) atravesado diagonalmente por dos brazos que formaba la cruz de San Andrés, también de seda y de color morado. (...) Este estandarte virreinal duró como símbolo de la Nueva España hasta el ya citado 24 de agosto de 1821 (...) Translation: (...) Crossed diagonally by two arms forming the cross of St. Andrew, also of silk and purple. (...) This viceroyal banner lasted as a symbol of colonial New Spain to the aforementioned 24 August 1821 (...) "
Deja de ordenar el estandarte virreinal.
El 24 de agosto de 1821, con la firma de los Tratados de Córdoba, dejó de tener vigencia elestandarte virreinal o de la dominación española, el que ondeó en la Nueva España desde elsiglo XVII; lienzo de seda en forma de cuadrado, de color pardo leonado, con la cruz de SanAndrés al centro, de color morado. En el siglo XVII fue cuando empezó a usarse la bandera específicamente trazada para la Nueva España.
Se hizo un estandarte con un cuadro rectangular de seda de color pardo o café, y una cruz aspada o cruz de San Andrés que cruzaba el cuadro y cuyos brazos terminaban con los escudos de la Ciudad de México. (...)
La bandera que casi por dos siglos fue la insignia de la Nueva España, se conserva en el Museo Nacional de Historia.
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |fecha=
ignored (|date=
suggested) (
help)Los actuales Estados norteamericanos de Alabama y Florida llevan como banderas estaduales -como lo indicáramos anteriormente- las tradicionales banderas españolas de fondo blanco con la roja cruz de San Andrés superpuesta, ya que hasta 1819 formaron parte de España.
{{
citation}}
: Unknown parameter |issues=
ignored (
help)Durante el reinado de la Casa de Austria, en virtud de la unión de Doña Juana la Loca con Don Felipe el Hermoso, la enseña consistía, por primera vez, en la emblemática Cruz de San Andrés o Aspas de Borgoña, colocada en un lienzo blanco o rojo pálido, con los atributos de la Dinastía, y en el centro de la misma las armas de España (25). Al advenimiento de los Borbones, las banderas pierden el carácter personal o familiar que tuvieron hasta la llegada al trono de Felipe V (1700), y la nueva bandera ostanta las flores de lis, aunque permanecen las Aspas de Borgoña. (...)
(25) Señala Rodríguez Lizcano que las banderas que prevalecen en España son las siguientes: siglos XV y XVI: blanca y Cruz Roja de San Andrés; siglo XVII, primera mitad: rojas; siglo XVII, segunda mitad, colores diversos y Cruz de Borgoña; siglo XVIII: blancas con la Cruz de Borgoña. José Luis Rodríguez Lizcano "La bandera roja y gualda: orígenes e historia", en Revista Internacional de Protocolo, núm. 9, p. 51.
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 22:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
And the Castile pendon was outdated and was not a symbol in New Spain, so let's stop adding it everywhere:
-- Enric Naval ( talk) 05:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Americas was a part of crown of Castile, not Aragon. See talk in crown of Castile.-- Santos30 ( talk) 08:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 21:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:35, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 05:49, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Proposal of consensus:
-- Santos30 ( talk) 09:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
First, that's the flag of revolutionaries, not the flag of New Spain. File:BANDERA_VIRREINAL_NOVOHISPANA.svg is nearer to the estandarte vicerreal, with the correct coat fo arms. I see that you altered Flag of Mexico to remove any mention to the Cross of Burgundy....
Second, you put that coat of arms everywhere in replacement of the more common version with the Granada symbol. You asked for the creatio of that symbol by providing a few dubious sources, so I don't trust that coat. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 11:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 13:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 14:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
You said twice that they are symbols of the insurgency. There were not insurgents in XVI, XVII or XVIII Century. The eagle, nopal and snake are symbols of Tenocthtitlan, and they were used by the colonial authorities and colonial institutions since XVI Century [23]. Of course the insurgents, Morelos or even Iturbide, used those symbols, and now are used in the flag of Mexico. But if you think they are only symbols of the insurgency you are completly wrong. Now I understand why you think the Cross of Burgundy only represents the Carlism. Jaontiveros ( talk) 16:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
...del principio del águila y la tuna que trae por armas hoy en sus banderas...
— Bernardo de Balbuena (1561-1627)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 05:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let´s see if I've got this straight, when you say: "There are not certain and unequivocal description if 'Estandarte virreinal' is a royal flag or not", that means nobody found a source to confirm that 'viceroyal banner' was used like a 'viceroyal flag' in New Spain? or, are you looking for a source to confirm that flag with Cross of Burgundy was used in New Spain? Jaontiveros ( talk) 06:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
-- Santos30 ( talk) 23:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I say one more time: my proposal is to put again the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy which is a very well known flag to identify the Spanish Empire (and New Spain) and removed any coat of arms. The red and yellow flag that you, or someone else, added into the infobox (
[25]) was a naval pavilion (my mistake: I wanted to say
pabellón naval = flag etiquette used at the stern of the ships) created over the last years of the viceroyalty, it was not used by the infantry in New Spain as the Cross of Burgundy was, and it was not placed in the viceroyal palace like the Cross of Burgundy was. In the other hand, several cities of New Spain had their own coat of arms (you can see
here at least 13 differents coats of arms of those cities) and there were many kings and
many coats in the Spanish Empire over three hundred years, in order to be neutral is better to remove anyone. I did not ask you anything about Aragon, is not necessary that you yell me anything about that with big and black letters (?). I asked you four questions that you have refused to answer.
Jaontiveros (
talk) 01:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
This is a very long discussion but you do not incorporate nothing of my proposal. None a word of what I have shown with references. Nothing. -- Santos30 ( talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
First that all, you must learn to distinguish a banner of a flag, they are not the same. You will understand the differences by reading the articles
flag and
banner. You are very confused when you say that the last banner of New Spain was red and yellow (roja y gualda). That's not true, the red and yellow flag was not the viceroyal banner, to be exact: that red and yellow flag was a pabellón naval, a flag etiquette used at the stern of the ships. This pabellón naval was used in some forts in coastal cities too. This flag was never representative of New Spain, even more, when it was used in Veracruz in 1822 or 1824, Mexico and Central America were already independent countries. By the way, this red and white flag etiquette became the first national flag of Spain, but that happened until 1843. Enric Naval has already told you before, anyway, there are many sources where you can read the history of the flag of Spain:
[33]
[34].
The viceroyal banner changed over three hundred years. At the very beginning the banner was red, green and even purple
[35]
[36]. In the days of Hernán Cortés a celebration wq=%22Estandarte%20virreinal%22%20amarilloas established, it was named
Paseo del Pendón, which took place every August 13 (San Hipólito's Day) in order to remember the fall of Tenochtilan. Initially the banner of Hernán Cortés was used on the celebration but in 1531
[37] it was replaced by the banner with the coat of arms of Mexico city in one side and the coats of arms of
Charles I of Spain in the other side. Over the years, the banner changed. The last Paseo del Pendón was held in 1820
[38]. Today this custom is celebrated in Chilpancingo
[39]. As I said before, the viceroyal banner had the coat of arms of Mexico City in 1538,of course sometimes had the royal coat too, sometimes the coat of arms of Mexico City had the snake and eagle, it changed over the years. The viceroyal banner accompanied the viceroy anywhere to announce his presence and it has usually placed in a balcony of the viceroyal palace. The last viceroyal banner was withdrawn from viceroyal palace in August 24, 1821, after the
Treaty of Córdoba was signed.
You are making a big mistake when you say that
this image was the flag of the council of city of Mexico (?), that image is precisely the viceroyal banner withdrawn from the viceroyal palace, it even has a square shape (!). Please read carefully the same source at the National Institute of Historical Studies of the Revolutions of Mexico where the image was taken, or read other sources where it is described:
There are many sources that describe the viceroy banner of New Spain with the Cross of Burgundy and with the coats of arms of Mexico City. There are some sources (
like this one) that even say the viceroyal banner was the "national flag" of New Spain, but that is not true. There was no national flag of Spain and there was no national flag of New Spain, actually, the viceroyal banner was more similar to a
Presidential Standard or a
Royal Standard.
You are misunderstanding the royal decree of Philip II of Spain (1596) because you are not reading completly
your source, that decree is talking about the personal coats of arms of viceroys, presidents, governors, admirals or captains ("...corregir el abuso de ostentar blasones particulares para mantener la pureza legal de aquellas...") Of course, the personal coats of arms of admirals and captains could not use on the ships of the Spanish Navy. Of course, the personal coat of arms of the viceroy could not add at the viceroyal banner, and of course the personal coat of arms or the viceroy could not use in official events . The viceroyal banner could only share the royal arms with the coat of arms of Mexico City (given by royal decree too). Perhaps in some years the viceroyal banner did not have the coat of arms of Mexico City, but we do have evidence and sources to confirm that the viceroyal banner had the coat of arms of Mexico city in XVI, XVIII and XIX centuries. I repeat: since 1531 the viceroyal banner had the coat of arms of Mexico City (since 1538 with the motto Non in multitudine exercitus consistit victoria, sed in voluntate Dei) in one side and in the other side it had the royal arms of Charles I (of course, it never had a San Hipólito image) and in the House of Bourbon´s period, since 1700 up to 1821, the viceroyal banner had not one but four coats of arms of Mexico City in the tip of each arm of the Cross of Burgundy; we don't have information if the royal arms still remained in the other side of the banner during the Bourbon's period.
This is correct, actually the coat of arms of Mexico City was the emblem of the jurisdiction of New Spain, which is why it was used in the viceroyal banner. One more reason to select this coat of arms to identify, in a particular way, the viceroyalty of New Spain.
Jaontiveros (
talk) 05:33, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Symbols of Spain could be alone in the template. But symbols of Mexico must to be with the arms of Spain in the template, in the flag or coat of arms. Jaontiveros you insists (4º) in do not incorporate nothing of my proposal.-- Santos30 ( talk) 10:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
This is incredible. Santos30 was already told months ago in the Spanish wikipedia that the Corss of Burgundy was the only flag that could be called representative of the Spanish colonies. He has been shown additional sources here in the English wikipedia. But by edit warring he has managed to keep anachronical coats of arms and flags in the articles about Spanish colonies. Santos30 is the only user that doesn't agree that the most adequate option is to use the Cross of Burgundy as flag and remove the coats of arms. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 18:04, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Today we can see the the flag of conqueror Pizarro. It is not flag of Burgundy. Today we can see the flag of Viceroyalty of Perú in the battle of Ayacucho. It is not flag of Burgundy. The fortress of Callao have same as flag of all spanish fortress and navy around the world. Red and Yellow. Who say that "Burgundy was the most representative flag of the Spanish colonies"? No body. No references.
-- 88.27.63.130 ( talk) 01:52, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
It says "The Viceroy commissioned Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo in the first Spanish exploration up the Pacific Ocean along the western coast of the Las Californias Province in 1542–1543."
But when was Las Californias Province established? Eldizzino ( talk) 22:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Removed three original ( WP:OR) maps containing numerous errors:
The information these maps intended to convey is important; better maps are available and would be welcome. WCCasey ( talk) 18:08, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an error. New Spain was not a kingdom. There were no kings of New Spain. It was always a viceroyalty, a specific political entity subordinate to the King of Spain. Furthermore, it's ludicrous to say that it was not a colony. It was in fact colonized by the Spanish and never independent of Spain. The article requires editing to clarify all this. Tmangray ( talk) 03:44, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Whenever I click anywhere on the page, I get linked to a Twitch stream. I made a Google search, and it seems that this kind of vandalism has been done before... - VulpesVulpes42 ( talk) 22:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please add the date range to the heading, "Economy during the Habsburg era"? It would make it easier to understand. Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 13:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Links in the middle of the page seem to be placed in backwards. Can someone fix it? Jordf32123 ( talk) 01:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
You mention 1419 and 1420 as years in the summary section for the establishment of the vice royalty of New Spain. New Spain is considered to be by and large in the Americas plus Oceania. How can that year be right if 1492 is commonly referred to as the year for Columbus discovery of the Americas? The vice royalty would had to be formed before the discovery ... I think (might be wrong as I am not to deep into that period) that we have to change it to 1519 and 1520 respectively. To the owner of the page: Please find the right date and fix NormanBuck ( talk) 01:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) -- Calidum 15:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
New Spain → Viceroyalty of New Spain – Per WP: CONSISTENT, this is the only one out of the 4 Viceroyalties, the others being aptly named Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, Viceroyalty of New Granada, and Viceroyalty of Peru that does not have "Viceroyalty'" on it's title so I think it should be consistent with the other article titles. Please let me know what you think, thanks! PyroFloe ( talk) 19:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr.: you added this ref name last year, but forgot to fill in the definition. Could you add your source info there? Thanks! -- Fyrael ( talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
I am not going to ask that the flag be changed; it seems that has been argued about enough already. I am asking, however, that the flag be placed alongside the coat of arms in the same box, rather than the flag have its own box. No other country articles on Wikipedia use this format, and it looks disorganized.
TLDR: Place flag alongside Coat of Arms in the same box.
This message applies to any other article on Spanish colonies.
296cherry ( talk) 17:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I noticed some parts of the article use the term "Indians", and I know its referring to indigenous people, but I thought some readers could mistake this to mean people from India since the context doesn't always make it immediately clear. I was wondering if we should standardize to say indigenous people throughout the article, or do we prefer it the current way even though its inconsistent? There is probably a relevant guideline but I can't remember it. Pythagimedes ( talk) 18:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Why is the map in the infobox described as anachronistic? Roger 8 Roger ( talk) 08:31, 20 April 2024 (UTC)