Talk:Spanish Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ). Add comments
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	Spain Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them. Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives

Archives to June 2006

Contents 1 Portugal was never part of the spanish empire - again and again 2 Who are you people? have you read any academic books on this period? 3 Western Sahara was not Spanish until 1884 4 Small addition 5 The Flag 6 Articles for Deletion 7 Spain had the greatest empire in modern history 8 Territorial height 9 Piracy attack 10 First global empire 11 Map 11.1 Map again... 11.2 Pertinent discussions retrieved from other talk pages 11.3 Map again and again 12 New INFOBOX 13 Spanish empire worldmap reuploaded 14 Capital: Seville? 15 Preceeded by/Succeeded by in Infobox 16 Infobox 17 Portugal was annexed by Spain. 18 Anon Editor Changing Map 19 THE infobox removed 20 The "Spanish Empire" 21 Reasons why the anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should not show Portuguese colonies 22 New Map 23 Two maps are better than one (perhaps) 24 How is this map synthesis, Red Hat of Pat? 25 Request for comment on intro map 26 Portugal and portuguese empire were under the kingdom of Philip II 27 Portuguese empire was part from spanish empire 28 Largest Empire Claims 29 Portugal and not its empire 30 Compromise Suggestion 31 Caption Changed 32 The flag (again) 33 Request for Comment: Dutch Empire map 34 Map again

[edit] Portugal was never part of the spanish empire - again and again

People, you might like it or not, but Portugal and its colonies were never part of the spanish empire. When Philip II of Spain was acclaimed Philip I of Portugal (legally, so it was not an invasion [although some portuguese didn't want the new dynasty and fought]) one of the conditions was remaining Portugal separate, as a personal union. So when that happened Portugal was not absorved into Spain, Portugal and Spain remained two independent separate countrys, just with the same king and obviously politics. So, Spanish empire never had the portuguese possessions but the spanish king had both empires. That's the diference that people seem to confuse. When Philip IV of Spain and III of Portugal wanted to absorb Portugal into Spain there was a war for DYNASTIC INDEPENDENCE, not for separation of the two countries. Of course we might not neglect the pro-spanish thinking of the kings, they were spanish in origin, so we might say that Portugal was under spanish influence, but independent.

That map shows not the spanish empire but the possessions of the king of Spain AND Portugal. You can call it the Philipine empire, the Portuguese-Spanish empire, etc, but with the lands included it is NOT ONLY the spanish empire.--Câmara 15:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Historian Henry Kamen in his essay The Golden Age of Spain would seem to agree with youNickmuddle (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The legend in the portuguese empire page is good. It shows the same map but it says: "An anachronous map showing the Portuguese possessions ruled by the Habsburg kings (1580-1640) jointly all Spanish colonies (1492-1975), shown together simultaneously and at their maximum extent."

Depends how you define this empire - see the "Definition". Also read the "Empire" article on the heterogenous nature of the organisation of empires. You are right about the Dynastic Independence - in a technical legalistic sense, yet in reality it was one empire, as it was effectively under one ruler - and Portugal was conquered and occupied by Spanish forces. For an analogy think about how the Warsaw pact was in reality part of the Soviet empire, inspite of the official independence of its member states. Of course it might be better to call it the Spanish-Portuguese-Aragonese- Bergundian empire - all a bit of a mouthful. As it was the "Spanish" part that was the dominant one its easiest to call it the Spanish, but in our nationalistic era this seems to cause misunderstandings. Maybe we should clarify these issues a little more in the Definition, so that people understand better the nature of this distinctly Renaissance era empire, with its diffuse authorities and its evolving nature. But lets not get lost too much in technicalities, we could go on and on Provocateur 23:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a better comparison from the same period: Tudor re-conquest of Ireland. A seperate crown for Ireland was set up by legislation in 1541, which probably gives a weaker claim than that of Phillip II over Portugal. It's still a matter of debate whether Ireland was a kingdom or a colony, part of the British Empire or a territory to be exploited.--Shtove 23:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who are you people? have you read any academic books on this period?

after reading the first few discussions i wondered to my self...... do any of you go to a university that teaches about the Spanish empire? i do go to a university that teaches exactly this which i have the benifit to be able to obtain relevant books on this topic at the library. Spain was truly a global empire, someone please pick up a book and read it first - preferably one by the leading academics in this field such as Henry Kamen, Hugh Thomas and of course Geoffrey Parker. i am pretty sure that Henry Kamen explains how large the spanish empire really was in his book 'Kamen, H, Empire: How Spain became a world power: 1492 - 1763' though i cant be bothered at the moment finding it but i will post it up here later when i have time. but i think i will add something very interesting to this discussion. according to the book "the Grand Strategy of Phillip II" by geoffrey Parker the very words "The world is not enough" comes from the Latin words of "non sufficit orbis" which was inscribed on a bronze medal (coin) in 1583 commemorating the creation of Phillips global empire. This is shown on page five and if anyone has the book you will see the medal has a picture of phillip on one side and a picture of the world with a horse on top of it on the other with the words "NON SUFFICIT ORBIS" situated around the world. Truly, spain was one of those empires that was enormous but i will try and get exact details on how big it is compared to the roman empire which i think is in another book i have.

I think you will find also that there were movements by the catholic orders to promote equal treatment of native Indians and laws were passed though its been a long time since i read about that so i can only be very vague about it as i also have to read up on it. unsigned comment by User:203.206.255.133 on 09:52, August 2, 2006

===>Thanks? That's not helpful. If you have some actual evidence to cite, please do. -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 14:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Many academics are partial... Xyzt1234 21:14, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Sahara was not Spanish until 1884

Western Sahara was awarded to Spain in 1884 at the Berlin Conference, so the sentence

"Spain lost all the colonial possessions in the first third of the century, except for Cuba, Puerto Rico and, isolated on the far side of the globe, the Philippines, Guam and nearby Pacific islands, as well as Spanish Sahara (mostly desert), parts of Morocco, and Spanish Guinea."

must be rewritten. Same applies to "parts of Morocco", which weren't Spanish until 1906 (Algeciras Conference), unless you consider that these "parts of Morocco" are Ceuta and Melilla, which is even more controversial.

Ifni was claimed by Spain since the 16th century and recognized by Morocco from 1859. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 16:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Small addition

I have made this small addition: , "enacting the most extraordinaty epic in human history, in the words of the prominent French historian Pierre Vilar", but user Merc has reverted it. What is wrong with that?.Veritas et Severitas 03:28, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am ging to be very rigorous with my sources:

Pierre Vilar Histoire de L'Espagne 21st Edition ISBN 2 13 051585 1

Page: 33.

Original text in French: ...la plus extraordinaire epopee de l'histoire humaine.

So I am introducing this small addition again.Veritas et Severitas 18:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Flag

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 territory within the Spanish Empire as flag of the Army. Archael Tzaraath 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly correct (I added the image as "Flag of the Spanish Empire"). Feel free to change the caption to your liking. Albrecht 14:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for Deletion

FYI, for anyone interested there are two AFD discussions going on at

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The first European colonization wave (15th century-19th century)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Second European colonization wave (19th-20th century) Gsd2000 11:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spain had the greatest empire in modern history

The best of Spain undisputably dominated Amsterdam, Belgium, Rome, Sicily and the most noteworthy Peru empire and Aztec empire at the same timeline. It took at least 3 super powers and 2 centuries ago to stop them

The best of Britain and France are not close that good

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.34.61 (talk • contribs)

I hadn't realised colonialism was something to be proud of. --Brian Fenton 08:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

madrid did win the best sport club of the 20th century so colonialism is not the worst thing to be proud of. For example U.K should give Gilbratar back to Spain, that is the worst hing to be proud of

And Olivença? Spain promised and signed that Olivença would return to Portugal. Until now, nothing. Colonialism may be something to be proud of if we recognize that are some unacceptable colonialisms (slavery, etc). It's a complicated subject, I think.Câmara 18:19, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Gibraltar is a part of the UK's Empire, but come on, that happened 300 years ago, Gibraltar in Spanish

Gibraltar belongs to the Gibraltarians, who have no desire to be Spanish. It was liberated three hundred years ago. --Gibnews 22:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

liberated?the  town was occupied and the spaniards expelled--84.232.107.40 22:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That reminds me some land called... Olivença... Anyway this discussion is useless and must be stopped now.Câmara 22:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Woe to those whose ego and national pride depend on their countries' fallen empires, for their unwarranted self importance will make them collide with each other... (And for some reason this seems rather typical of both Spaniards and Brittons, while denizens of other countries avoid revelling in the shameful fact of European colonialism of the world, for the most part) One wonders what's the gain of these. It's not like they'll get a governorship of Peru or India for their armchair patriotism, right? --217.127.191.232 (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Territorial height

Wasn't the empire at its territorial height between 1580 and 1640, when it had control of Portugal and its empire? During that period it ruled basically the same areas it did in 1790, except for the central and most of the western US, which area was surpassed by that of Brazil and other Portuguese territories, probably. SamEV 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As Portugal maintained its independence, it's wrong to say the spanish empire included it.Câmara 18:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Since it is commonly stated that the Empires of the Modern Age include the possesions of the Sovereigns of those Empires and not the territories effectively administered by the metropolis, it is not wrong to say that Portugal was a possesion of the King of Spain, and therefore a part of the Empire of the King of Spain. In other words, Portugal, Brazil and all the territories of the Portuguese Empire were, for 60 years, part of the Spanish Empire.

Maybe you are right but then it is not even wrong to say the Spanish Empire was part of the Portuguese Empire for 60 years either since King Felipe II (I for Portugal) was the son of a Portuguese princess and he ruled which much love the country of his mother. What historians sometimes denied is that both countries fought side by side in several battles to protect both colonies Spanish and Portuguese against the Dutch, English and the French. (Filipe)

Camara, you're in denial... The Spanish king took over Portugal. And Spain DID have control over it, in fact Portugal's rebellion was due to the heavy taxation brought upon it by Philip III of Spain. It wasn't a union, such as that between Aragon and Castile. There was no Portuguese monarch, just the Spanish king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. A Raised-in-Portugal-Grandchild-of-the-King-of-Portugal-and-favored-by-the-Portuguese-nobility Spanish King. Oh, and his father was German. ;p --217.127.191.232 (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Piracy attack

Sorry for my horrible english, but part of "God is Spanish" say that the piracy was dangerus for the Emperie economi. I have was study that information and I haven't found any author who say that (spanish and no spanish). Some pirates, like Drake, sometimes could get a few important ships; but that was a exception no the rule. That idea is more from Hollywood movies that History investigations.

w:es:Usuario:Zósimo I'm agree. I'm spaniard, and doctors told me the same at the university. Piracy could'nt take anything because the Armada was always with the galeones during the trip from Hispanoamérica to España. Doctors told me also that most of piratas come from G.Britain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.118.208 (talk) 22:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First global empire

Both the page for the Portuguese Empire and the Spanish Empire say they were the first global empire. What's up with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.245.188 (talk • contribs)

Well spotted. The Spanish Empire only went "global" (instead of a Europen-American affair) with the settlement of the Philippines, in 1565, by which time Portugal had established posts in Brazil, Africa, India and East Asia. So Portugal was "first". Gsd2000 00:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Distinction between trading and colonial empire - does that matter?--Shtove 10:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

When does a trading post become a colony? Gsd2000 11:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

With the birth of the first child of a colonist. I dunno. What the intro says now is "one of the first global empires" - what's needed is an academic statement that the Spanish (or Portuguese) empire was the first global empire.--Shtove 20:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Spain was the first global empire since it was the first in human history to control territories in all 5 continents. Portugal was never such an empire since it never had any colonial possesions in Europe. I think it is not wrong to say that Portugal was the first global "state" or political organization, but Spain was the first global colonial empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.18.237.122 (talk • contribs)

Portugal is in Europe! The Ogre 14:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So, my friend the Ogre, are you saying that portugal was a portuguese colony?? Please read the comments carefully before replying nonsense. Spain had colonies in italy, belgium, the netherlands, and other european territories. Portugal did not. Portugal was never a colonial power in europe. Therefore Portugal was never a global colonial power. Spain was. Spain had colonies in every continent. It was the first country to do so, followed by britain and france.

We can say loads of things. For instance, that an empire is no good without an head; that the head was in Europe; that if someone has a head in Mars, he is either at least in part Martian or headless. It is also possible to ask which was the extent of the cultural imprint left by Spain in Italy (!), Belgium and the Netherlands. Xyzt1234 21:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I think I don't understand your point. By the way, who's talking about cultural imprint? I'm talking about political domination. But anyway, if you want to see the cultural imprint of Spain in Italy go and admire Naples and its cultural sites dating from the Spanish colonial period. Regards.

Allright but did the spanish forget the 60% of all the spanish territories in Europe were lent by marriage with the habsburg family and they were protected by Portuguese soldiers. historical facts and archives in Antwerp Belgium proofs those facts, as well in Reggio Calabria in Italy. Regards from a Portuguese that lived in Antwerpen and Calabria in Italy !!!!

===Semiprotection request===

Hi The Ogre, I noticed you are keeping reverting anons on this page, I just wonder if you would agree if I asked for a semiprotection request here. --Andersmusician $ 23:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Andersmusician! Thank you for your atention! And you are right, a Semiprotection, impeaching non-registered users of editing the article would be a good idea. The anonimous user in question defends a POV position that the Spanish Empire was, without discussion, the first global empire, wich is contradicted by the previous existence of the Portuguese Empire. Trying not to fall into petty competition, the text now states the the Spanish Empire was "one of the first global empires." I believe this is a good way to put it and it should remain so. Could you, please, ask for the semiprotection? Gracias, hombre! Hasta siempre! The Ogre 16:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I really think this is a stupid debate only interesting for portuguese and spanish national-"chauvinistes". Portugal and Spain (Castile) compited in 15 and 16 centuries, and now some portuguese and some spaniards seem to be very concerned about it. But who was the first? Who knows? Was the Guinness World Records there? Say (here and in the Portuguese Empire) that Spain and Portugal compited to be the first and it will be true. What you say, The Ogre and the others, is not more than an oppinion, not the truth. Saludos. --Ignacio 22:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

My friend... please do not insult others. I am not a nationalist chauvinist. In fact I am quite opposed to such bias! I am even a member of both WikiProject Spain and WikiProject Portugal! That is way I believe that the wording "one of the first global empires." is a good way to put it. And I am not saying that the Portuguese Empire was the first global one! I am also not saying that the Spanish was the first global one! What I am saying is that one can not state such blumt affirmations without discussion, exactly because the two empires were quite contemporary and, as you say said, compited with each other! What I am trying to do to is stop an anon user who is clearly a nationalist chauvinist, who tries to state blumtly that Spain had the first global empire, without discussion! Do you understand what I am trying to say? I hope so. Thank you. The Ogre 13:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

And, Ignaciogavira, calling "names" and of being desrespectufull of the truth to other good-faith editors is not good policy (it's very close to personal attack), namely when they were the ones to welcome you in wikipedia... The Ogre 13:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear friend, I apologize if I my words look like unrespectful for you. I did not said that you were national-chauvinist. I said that discussion was only interesting for those people. Of course I understand what you say and I agree. Anyway I was very surprised when after reading this discussion here I read this on Portuguese Empire article: "The Portuguese Empire was the first global empire in history. It was the earliest and longest lived of the European colonial empires, spanning almost six centuries, from the capture of Ceuta in 1415 to the handover of Macau in 1999", and I have not see changes on that article. Peço-te desculpas pelo malentendido. Um abraço. --Ignacio 15:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah bud just because its on another wikipedia article doesnt mean its right. Which it isnt. Spain was the worlds first truly GLOBAL empire. Portugal was establishing colonies before spain but not across the pond. Im sure you've heard of Christopher Colombus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.226.67.23 (talk) 05:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map

A user is unilaterally changing the Spanish empire map with another. That map has been there long as a result of consensus. In any case, this user seems to ignore that for a long time (1580-1640) Portugal and its empire were also under Spanish rule and the Portuguese broke away in 1640 with a fight. The deleted map is more complete and this one now also ignores other areas controlled or claimed by Spain. I leave you with this guy though, who seems to make changes on his own and personal point of view. I will respond no more. Tired of this type of users. Good luck. 65.11.114.84 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonymous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a map depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowns of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Habsburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different, since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre 15:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map again...

Hello Onofre Bouvila! I am sorry to say but the present map, the one you've just added is completly POV! The Spanish Empire never included the Portuguese Empire! They were two different empires ruled by the same dinasty - the Habsburgs! And there is already a map showing the extent of both empires at the exact time of the Iberian Union. This map is wrong because it implies that the Portuguese Empire was Spanish, and because it mingles an anachronous view of the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese possessions between 1580-1640. I really am not disussing the details regarding the exact borders of the Spanish territories, but a map of this sort, and first of all the firts one to appear in the article, should not emply the communality of Spanish and Portuguese possessions. I'm not reverting you just now, but this needs to be discussed and changed. The Ogre 18:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Therefore I am placing a tag on the article (The neutrality and factual accuracy of this section are disputed.) since in several places it implies the Spanish possession of the Portuguese Empire! The Ogre 18:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugal was under Spanish rule for 60 years. The Portuguese only got independence through a rebellion. Anything else is sophistry, and I am tired of sophistry here. Just learn some basic history. Many areas of Spain have always retain a lot of independence in many respects, still they were and are part of Spain. Not all situations in the dominions under Spanish rule were the same: The Americas, Holland etc, possessions of Italy, Portugal, etc. The Spanish empire was huge and therefore complicated, but to say that Portugal was not under Spanish rule for 60 years and that they did not achieve independence through a rebellion against Spain is simply so ignorant of History, so full of manipulation and twisted lies that I will not comment anymore. As to the areas it is explained in the map. Some were colonized, others claimed. This discussion was already held long ago. According to this type of sophistry the Canadians should redefine their map, because in fact most of the country has virtually never seen a human being. But I am not going to go over discussions that were held time ago. Good luck here with the types of contributors that we all can see. Bye. 65.11.114.28 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion, again... In 1580, because of the vacant Portuguese throne, and fearing that Philip II of Spain would inherit the Portuguese throne, Anthony declared himself king of Portugal. Populars supported him, but the Council of Governors of Portugal (who ruled the country after Henry I's death) had almost all supported Philip II's claim, and were scared of the support Anthony I had. So, feeling their own lives at risk, they went to Spain (I think Ayamonte) and declared Philip II of Spain as the legal successor of Henry. So, Philip (luso-spanish, remember also) with the support of the Portuguese nobles entered in Portugal in a de jure civil war against Anthony I, not Spanish invasion. He won. In 1581 he was declared king Philip I of Portugal, and swore to guarantee the Portuguese independence, and to assure the colonies to be ruled by Portugal. So, the two countries (anyway it is wrong to say Spain, it was not one country) entered in a personal union, both independent and both empires were ruled separately, so it is also wrong to say it was a super-fused-global-empire, because existed two, not one. Philip I lived the next years in Portugal and had support of the population, because Philip I shown to be a good personal union ruler. Philip II/I then tried to take the english throne, and his armies/armadas (Spanish, Portuguese, etc) were sent. Note that the Anglo-Portuguese alliance was not broken, Elizabeth I always thought Portugal soon or later would rebel against Philip. She even tried to force revolutions, but she failed. The people began to complain about an absent king, and Philip created vice-kings for Portugal to fill that void (not to rule a dependent possession), but it was only a question of time until Portugal explode because of Castilian centralization ideologies of the ministers of Philip III/II and IV/III. The Portuguese flag did not change, to reflect Portuguese independence, although obviously the royal banner now included the Portuguese shield. Portuguese ships could also use Portuguese or Spanish flags. At this time the Dutch-Portuguese overseas war began, and only ended way after the personal union ended. Philip IV/III tried to unite the countries, but Portugal rebelled, and chose John IV to be king, not to become independent. At that time that was known as acclamation, but Portuguese romantic ideology of the XIX century called it restoration of independence. So, Portugal was independent, that's a fact, not a point of view. Portugal was under Spanish influence? Of course, Spanish nobles were more than Portuguese ones and were closer to the king. But the kings were also Portuguese (by Philip's II/I mother). If you're trying to say Portugal was part of Spain, was England part of Scotland when James began their personal union?Câmara 21:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Castilian-Lusitanian disputes aside, I have to say I rather like the new map, which isn't as overzealous territorially. Ideally, I would support a complete revamp along the lines of Image:OttomanEmpireIn1683.png, which chronicles expansion with admirable precision, besides looking much more aesthetic and professional (making maps in Paint is like entering a pistol duel armed with a toothpick). We could strike a compromise and collaborate on improving the present map considerably in one blow. If others are interested, I can submit the idea to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spain. Albrecht 23:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This is my last word here. Tired of Portuguese nationalistic fantasies. I have already seen in other places some Dutch claim that Holland was not under Spanish rule, going around the issue with the same type of fantasies. But this is Wiki, a heap of garbage. Definitely goodbye. 65.10.51.251 19:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add a word here - Empire - read that article very carefully, especially the first two paragraphs and also the section on the heterogenous organization of empires. If there is any justification for calling the Spanish Empire "Spanish" it is because what was crucial to holding this whole empire together were Spanish forces, though the contributions of others within the empire were, nevertheles, important. When said Spanish forces failed Portugal broke away. I think part of the cause of disputes here is the confusing of the Spanish Empire with the Spanish colonial empire that was administered from Seville. It is true that the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires were kept legally and administratively seperate. Provocateur 04:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mr. 65.10.51.251, where did you saw that the Portuguese empire was part of the Spanish empire? And the presence of Spanish soldiers in Portugal don't matter to this case: is Iraq part of the USA today? Or was Portugal part of the Napoleonic empire? No. The Philips were the recognized kings of Portugal, and they could use the troops they wanted, even if foreign, as they were more loyal to them. So, the country was not occupied by another country, but defended by the troops the king wanted. That's the difference. Was Portugal administrated by Spanish ministers in the late period? Yes. What's the problem with that? It was unpopular - future proved that - but if the king wanted he could used Aztec ministers and it was the same: he had the power to do that, if he wanted to. A portuguese minister would defend some portuguese interests against the crown's interests. But as the king's interests were the same or almost the same as the castilian interests, he used castilian ministers. So Portugal and its empire was independent but influenced by spanish/castilian interests (the interests of the king of Portugal too!!! Note that the Philips could destroy the country (Portugal), because they ruled legally and have The Power), and that's not the same as being part of Spain/Spanish Empire. The Iberian Union was like a very very close alliance. In the cortes of Tomar of 1581, where Philip becomes Philip I of Portugal, he says Portugal would remain a separate country, so it was a personal union. What's the problem with this personal union? Scotland & England also had one, and anybody is saying England was part of Scotland? No. Why? Because it was a personal union, not a state union! Portuguese nationalistic fantasies? LOLOL I would say this is a pro-spanish nationalistic fantasy!! I really can't believe someone is raising this argument! Show me an official document that shows that Portugal, with its empire or not, become part of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Leon (this is another discussion, as AFAIK "Spain" didn't exist either until much later)! There is no Union Act of Portugal and another spanish kingdom. That was surely the objective of the Habsburg crown, but that didn't happen because Portugal broke the personal union. Remember that Philip III/IV was the legal king of Portugal, so the only chances of Portugal to end that union was to chose an "illegal" king, in this case John IV (anyway he had some legal base because some Philip I's promises were not done by his son and grandson). So Portugal struggled to acclaim John IV. Of course Philip III/IV didn't wanted that, and used his resources (spanish troops) to take the portuguese throne back, starting the Portuguese Restoration War.Câmara 20:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pertinent discussions retrieved from other talk pages

Retrived from Talk:Hispanic, Talk:Spanish people#Map_again and User talk:Ramirez72#Map of the Spanish Empire

User The Oger, a Portuguese, goes around deleting the Spanish Empire map that obviously includes Portugal and its empire because, as anyone knows versed in history, Portugal and its empire were part of the Spanish Empire from 1580 to 1640, when the Portuguese broke away with a fight. I am growing tired of lies and manipulation by some users for nationalistic or other issues or just plain ignorance. 65.11.70.234 14:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this discussion should go to the description page of the Spanish Empire map in Wikimedia Commons. It is pointless to create new maps and modify them from the Englsh Wikipedia. All this stuff is done in commons, the consensus is obtained there, and then everyone from all the wikipedias export the maps from commons, to here. Apart from this, I don't think you have much knowledge about all this stuff. For example, I've read in the "edit summary", comments from Ramírez saying that the Western coast of the USA was never colonized. Hmmmm? And then what about the colonies and missions spread all over Oregon and California??? Anyway discuss this in commons, better. Because otherwise we will have one thousand different maps for the Spanish Empire. Onofre Bouvila 17:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Onofre Bouvila! I am sorry to say but the present map, the one you've just added to Spanish Empire is completly POV! The Spanish Empire never included the Portuguese Empire! They were two different empires ruled by the same dinasty - the Habsburgs! And there is already another map showing the extent of both empires at the exact time of the Iberian Union. This map (Image:Spanish Empire.png) is wrong because it implies that the Portuguese Empire was Spanish, and because it mingles an anachronous view of the Spanish Empire with the Portuguese possessions between 1580-1640. I really am not disussing the details regarding the exact borders of the Spanish territories, but a map of this sort, and first of all the firts one to appear in the article, should not emply the communality of Spanish and Portuguese possessions. I'm not reverting you just now, but this needs to be discussed and changed. The Ogre 18:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this issue, but if you see the historical map that has been used in the wikipedia for these issues (the anachronous one), in its page of wikimedia commons, there is an extense "Summary" section that explains every frontier and every border. I am not saying that is right, but at least, it is justified. If one wants to change the map of the hispanophone, just go there and discuss it there, and give your own sources, and write in the talk page of the map, and write to the original makers of the map to improve it, but do not create new maps, and less from the English wikipedia, because then we have a thousand maps and when a random user wants to pick up a map to illustrate his article, does not know which one to take. So we have lots of maps now, but there is one, that has been always used, and that has an extense summary section that explains all the sources taken to make the map. So let's try to change that one, but don't take the direct way, and to impose your point of view (being right or not), create new maps, because that just increases the confusion around the issue. In addition, if you wanna create new maps, for each map, at least, make a section to explain the sources; creating a new map to illustrate your point of view and not providing verifiable sources in its commons page, is pointless. If you don't wanna lose the time getting the sources, don't create a map please. Anyway, as I said, I would not create any map, but modify the one that we already have, and that has enough sources. Discuss from that basis, trying to modify the existing one. Onofre Bouvila 21:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You can talk all you want to this user called The Oger. He will not listen. Just follow his history. He goes around Wiki deleting the consensus map from Wiki everywhere. 65.10.51.251 20:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Portugal and its empire was part of the Spanish empire from 1580 to 1640. But it seems that some users want to hide another fact too badly. I do not care. I am more and more convinced that Wiki stinks with so many people lying and manipulating. 65.11.70.234 13:38, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Look 65.11.70.234, I don't know who you are, and it's really anoying to have to be arguing with some anonimous guy who just thinks he owns the truth. Regarding the Map, it is a ma depicting the territories belonging to the Habsburg crowsn of Castile and Aragon all over the world. It is not a map depicting the Hasburg Portuguese possessions from 1580 to 1640. You see, Portugal and its empire were never part of the Spanish Empire. From 1580 to 1640 Portugal and Spain had the same king, in a personal union of the crowns, wich is very different since they remained independent countries from each other! So the Portuguese and the Spanish Empires were never the same, even if in a certain period of 60 years the two of them were ruled jointly by the Habsburgs - if you want to talk about the Habsburgs' Empire, that is another story! The Ogre 14:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The posted map looks fine to me. It states clearly that the two empires remained separate. --Burgas00 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Wich map, the one on the right or the one in the article Spanish Empire (an anachronous map)? And the question is more starting an article with a map that imediatly represents the Spanish Empire as including the Portuguese one (Notice that the Portuguese Empire page does not do the same), or having a map that presents only the Spanish Empire and further down in the article having this map here, a non-anachronous map, that represents both empires in the period of the personal union of the crowns, called the Iberian Union? The Ogre 12:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Portugal was under Spanish rule for 60 years and in Modern History, if that is not a historical link related to the Spanish state(and therefore to its people) I do not know what a historical link is (apart from many others)During this period most Portuguese writers wrote in Spanish and Portuguese, etc, in the same way as in the middle ages most Spanish poets wrote in Calician-Portuguese, etc. The Portuguese only got independenc from Spain through a rebellion. Anything else is sophistry, and I am tired of sophistry here. Just learn some basic history. Many areas of Spain have always retain a lot of independence in many respects, still they were and are part of Spain. Not all situations in the dominions under Spanish rule were the same: The Americas, Holland etc, possessions of Italy, Portugal, etc, more recently Morrocco, etc and on and on: All different situations. The Spanish empire was huge and therefore complicated, but to say that Portugal was not under Spanish rule for 60 years and that they did not achieve independence through a rebellion against Spain is simply so ignorant of History, so full of manipulation and twisted lies that I will not comment anymore. As to the areas it is explained in the map. Some were colonized, others claimed. This discussion was already held long ago in the Spanish Empire map. According to this type of sophistry the Canadians should redefine their map, because in fact most of the country has virtually never seen a human being, etc. But I am not going to go over discussions that were held time ago. Good luck here with the types of contributors that we all can see. Bye. 65.11.114.28 19:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello¡¡ I m totally agree

---

Hello Ramirez72! Yes, the new map (Spanish Empire-World Map.png) is good. Good job! But why do you add new maps, instead of uploading a new version of the existing ones? You see, by adding new maps you are multiplicating the number of maps on the same subject, wich is a bit confusing... Just check the list of maps available on the Spanish Empire!

Your latest version - should replace all others	The one with the northern western coastal line of the Unites States	Spanish Empire-(World Map).png The one with Portugal	Bad Anachronous map of the Spanish Empire plus the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640
Bad Anachronous map of the Spanish Empire plus the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640	A good map of the Portuguese and Spanish Empires during 1580-1640 - should replace all others regarding the Iberian Union period

By the way, you should check all the pages that have some of these maps and correct the links, I'll try to do the same. Thank you! The Ogre 16:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Done it! The Ogre 16:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The Spaniards explored the western coast of North America. They arrived to Alaska, and they founded missions and forts all over California and Oregon. So stop you both changing the map for your own. These maps are changed from Wikimedia Commons, and there is already a map that was made long time ago, it is sourced, and it explains the different territories that Spain had along about 400 years.

So that's the good one, and it has been discussed by the Wikimedia community. Creating new maps for your own purposes is pointless. In addition, trying to remove the portuguese possessions from the map, Ogre, is just nationalistic bias. They belonged to the Empire for a period of 60 years, and it is explained in the legend, and they are displayed in a different colour. So I don't really understand why do you keep trying to remove them. Onofre Bouvila 17:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map again and again

There were several paralel discussions about this issue, I've diverted them here. Also, I'm placing a request for participacion in the discussion at Talk:Portuguese Empire, Talk:Evolution of the Portuguese Empire, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portugal, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain. The Ogre 13:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

A point which I think The Ogre understands, and some of his opponents do not understand, is the difference between union of two countries, and personal (or dynastic) union. Between 1580 and 1640, Portugal and Spain were in personal union - they had the same King. A comparable situation was that of Great Britain and Hannover, from 1714 to 1837. In 1714 King George of Hannover succeeded to the throne of Britain, and he and his heirs ruled both countries until 1837, when the Salic law in force in Hannover but not in Britain caused the thrones to go separate ways. In 1776 a later King George used troops from his kingdom of Hannover to fight to protect to preserve the rule of his other kingdom of Britain over its North American colonies. But no-one would ever say that Hannover was "British". Maproom 21:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually all the European posesions of the Spanish Habsburgs were under a personal union: the Lower Countries, Aragon, Cataluña, Napoles, etc. Each of this kingdoms (as they were called) had its own law and rights, and they only answered to the king, not to Spain. Furthermore, the notion of Spain as a united nation can only be used from the 18th-century on. --Victor12 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New INFOBOX

Hi, Ive just spend a hard time adding an infobox to the article, also adding some other pics, please tell me if it's ok or not. --Andersmusician 03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish empire worldmap reuploaded

I 've just reuploaded this to a version without contemporary country borders in south america. --Andersmusician 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Spanish's capital city in that period was Toledo and in this page it reads that it was Seville.

Well it's a long period so maybe first toledo and then seville, so if you bring us dates we can edit capitals designment --Andersmusician $ 05:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Capital: Seville???? Common!

Seville never was the capital of Spain - just the main port. Don't take Age of Empires III as a History guide. The only official capital of Spain has been Madrid since 1561, except between 1601 and 1606 in which it was Valladolid.--Menah the Great 12:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No Portuguese territories? They were part of Spain. What's with all the revisionism here? It's against the site's policy. If Portugal wasn't part of the empire, then there can be none...you see Spain was construed by many former independent entities. Portugal was in the same status as the rest. In fact Portugal seperated half a century later because of the taxes imposed by the Spanish king. Spain had complete control over it. I changed the map to the only correct one of the above. It is a good map, and is even precise enough to include the Spanish occupation of northern Taiwan (which lasted 17 years), which not many know about. Mainstream history dictates that Portugal was indeed annexed by Spain, which is what Wikipedia should keep to, not revisionism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital: Seville?

Common!

somebody (the nationalistic anon(which is not bad to be so)) added the king phillip II's coat on the infobox, but I don't know whether we should use that one or the old one. Then Ignaciogavira  (talk · contribs)added the Charles I's coat --Andersmusician $ 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Caption1

OLD: Coat of arms of the king Philip II of Spain

--Andersmusician $ 21:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Any of those coats are correct in one or another period of the spanish empire. I have added finally the only coat common to all the period, as resumed coat of arms of the spanish monarchs, representing the Crown of Castile. The first one belongs to the San Francisco Presidio National Park, in the USA, but it is not representative of a spanish coat of arms.

Resumed Coat of Arms

--Ignacio 10:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Preceeded by/Succeeded by in Infobox

In my opinion this stuff [1] is an instance of WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:FLAGCRUFT, not to mention misleading. The Spanish Empire was not "succeeded by" the Netherlands or Puerto Rico, it withered away until it was put out of its misery by the USA in 1898. If anything, as the ruler of a set of colonies once held by Spain, one could argue that the USA "succeeded" it. Details like these should be left to the text of the article, where there is no ambiguity. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The spanish american war didnt end the spanish empire. god. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.151.44 (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not subscribe to the opinion that the Spanish Empire was succeeded by "another empire". It was succeeded by the new states controlling the territories formerly held by the empire. As to whereas you have any opinion regarding the use use of flags in articles or listcruft concerning the infobox you are welcome to raise the question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Former countries. Cheers, -- Domino theory 19:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's take the Spanish colonies of Jamaica and Puerto Rico. The former was taken by the British in 1655 and the latter by the Americans in 1898. In what sense did the British colony of Jamaica "succeed" the Spanish Empire, when the Empire continued to exist for another 343 years? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). In order to avoid any confusion that might linger it might be worth while to point out that the project also applies to former empires with their various subdivisions and colonies.

The project exists to improve the articles within its scope, and one of the ways is this is managed is to introduce common structures in the articles in order to make the content more readily accessible to the reader. An important part of this common structure is the infobox, which collates certain features and facts for an easy review but this does not replace the need for an in-depth explanation in the text of the article.

Issues related to the article should be raised here on the talk page, but issues related to the WikiProject should be raised on the talk page of the project. Removing information and material such as the infobox that is supported by the project from the article is not very considerate, not to mention counter productive to establishing a common structure for similar articles, in this case former empires.

Anyone who is interested in and wishes to influence the project is encouraged to join. -- Domino theory 19:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what being "considerate" has to do with things - if it's not appropriate it shouldn't stay. European empires were not former countries, and that infobox is just going to start edit wars about what the definition of "preceded/succeeded by" is, what the entities were that preceded and succeeded the empire (if any), what currencies were in use, and on placing an exact date on the start and end of the empire. And so on. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal was annexed by Spain.

Ok, this is from Encyclopedia Britannica...it doesn't get any more official or mainstream as this. And I quote: "During the short reign of Sebastian's old uncle, King Henry (1578–80), Philip carefully prepared his ground in Portugal by intrigue and bribery. Nevertheless, when Henry died, the opposition to Castile was still so strong in Portugal and the attitude of France and England so threatening that it was necessary for Philip to send Alba with an army to conquer Portugal in 1580." The privileges enjoyed by the Portuguese were no different than those applied to the Catalans. It was the exact same case. Spain still had total control over the territory. In fact heavy taxation on the Portuguese is what caused the seperation in 1640! The arguments used by Portuguese revisionists here is totally contradictory and should be put to an end, along with their vandalization of the article.

Source http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-70402/Spain

Therefore Portuguese territories SHOULD be included in the anachronous map, theone in use is misleading and historically incorrect. I suggest this article be disabled for editing by unkown users.

[edit] Anon Editor Changing Map

Anon editor is reverting to the (misleading) map showing Portuguese and Spanish colonial possessions. To quote Henry Kamen, "Empire: How Spain Became a World Power, 1492-1763" [2]: "After the union of the crowns of Portugal and Spain in 1580...Spain found itself in the difficult position of having to respect Portuguese primacy in major areas of commercial enterprise. Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm. The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. There is no doubt that the King did his best to maintain the autonomy of Portugal. In practice, however, the interests of Spain and Portugal became closely intertwined, thanks in good measure to the Portuguese financiers who entered the service of the Spanish crown." Just to repeat: Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm. The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is how it was for all territories under control of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Spain had control over taxation, and I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica stating Spain conquered Portugal above. Just as good as your source, if not more so.

68.179.176.9 02:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I may not be a moderator like you, but hopefully there is someone here with equal power that can sort this out and keep your biased view out of the article.

68.179.176.9 02:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I've provided a reputable source the union was one of crowns, not of states. Your Britannica quote actually does not contradict this because it states that Philip conquered Portugal - not Spain. It also does not explain what is meant by "conquered": it's your business how you interpret this word in the context of the Iberian Union, but if this is the only reference you can provide to back up your claim, you are clearly not very well read, and are engaging in original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your source says union of states.....

Are you even reading your own quotes? Talk about not being well read...

Maybe your effort in belittling me could be put to better use.

And Philip was the king of Spain, therefore Spain conquered Portugal. This isn't original research or whatever you would like to dress this as. I was taught this in World History, no research needed. And I use this source because it encompasses neutrality. It doesn't get any more non-POV than Encyclopedia Britannica.

Also: con·quer (kŏng'kər) Pronunciation Key v. con·quered, con·quer·ing, con·quers

v. tr.

To defeat or subdue by force, especially by force of arms. To gain or secure control of by or as if by force of arms: scientists battling to conquer disease; a singer who conquered the operatic world. To overcome or surmount by physical, mental, or moral force: I finally conquered my fear of heights. See Synonyms at defeat.

68.179.176.9 02:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I would like to add another source that backs me up:

There was never any question of the institutional incorporation of Portugal into the Castilian system of government. The union of crowns was carried out strictly on the basis of the system that prevailed in the Spanish Habsburg empire, the Aragonese federative system of separate principalities. Felipe II swore not to interfere in the laws, customs, or system of government of Portugal and not to appoint Spaniards to Portuguese offices. This pledge was largely respected during the reigns of Felipe II and Felipe III, and even afterward under Felipe IV, so that the kingdom and its overseas [244] empire remained completely separate and essentially autonomous under the Hispanic crown. - Stanley G. Payne (reknowned Iberian historian FYI).

http://libro.uca.edu/payne1/payne12.htm

According to this Portugal was under the same autonomy as the other states. So if you insist on this I'm afraid the Spanish Empire simply never existed then, eh? Also, note how he says ...essentially autonomous under the Hispanic crown. This means Portugal was not an equal, it was subject to Spain. You see, autonomy doesn't exactly equal independence, as shown by the heavy taxation that in the end led to Portugal's seperation.

68.179.176.9 04:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Wow, dear Lord. So I looked into your source, and guess what? Clearly biased.

http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=9646

Sorry Red, but you need to do better than that. It's starting to become obvious that you are pushing an agenda here.

68.179.176.9 04:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

One person disagreed with Mr. Kamen! Oh my god, we'd better throw away all his books immediately! Please be more mature about this. Besides, the criticisms of the review weren't even about what we are talking about here. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water. As for the rest of your sources, you can find any old crap on the web because anyone can post any old crap without any form of peer review. The fact that you can't provide any published book to back up your claim shows how weak it is.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, as User:68.179.176.9 said, Portugal was not a special autonomous region under Philip II. His domains were made up of several kingdoms which were separate from each other. They were only united by their allegiance to the same king as there was no "Spain" at that time. Thus, we have two choices here:

• If we exclude Portugal from the "Spanish Empire" it would also be necessary to exclude all other domains which were not ruled by Castilla such as those of the Crown of Aragon.
• On the other hand, if we include the Crown of Aragon and other kingdoms under "Spanish Empire", Portuguese domains must also be included, as they had the same autonomy as those of Aragon.

IMHO, this second choice seems more appropriate as it includes all territories under the personal rule of Philip II. --Victor12 04:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, that is original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, look here Spanish_Empire#.22God_is_Spanish.22_.281596.E2.80.931626.29. The map showing the two countries' empires during the union is on the page, just not at the top. This should be enough for you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research? Why? It's in your Kamen quote The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. Philip's empire was a personal union with different independent states: Castilla, Aragón, Portugal, Naples and Sicily, etc. So if you want to include Portugal from the empire you might as well exclude the others. --Victor12 13:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That is NOT original research! Please tell me this isn't the only moderator here! This site is a wiki, and here we are having someone's beliefs imposed on us because he's a moderator, despite having 2 much more reliable, non-POV neutral sources that CLEARLY back up what we are saying. Original research? If you read the article on Kamen, he is criticised by a wide array of reputable historians, including the royal academy of history in Spain. We can't have a guy widely being accused of rubbishing the history of Spain as a source on the Spanish Empire. Please Red, do what is right. I also find it very funny that the only ones asking for Portugal not to be included have Portuguese names. And by the way, Stanley G. Payne's excerpt is from a book.

Here's some background on him, funny you say he's "any old source": http://history.wisc.edu/people/emeriti/cv/payne_cv.pdf

Encyclopedia Britannica is a great source as well, you can't deny that.

The Encyclopædia Britannica is a general English-language encyclopaedia published by Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., a privately held company. The articles in the Britannica are aimed at educated adult readers, and written by a staff of 19 full-time editors and over 4,000 expert contributors. It is widely considered to be the most scholarly of encyclopaedias.[1][2] 68.179.176.9 14:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

For the second time - I'll put it in bold and in capitals and in large letters - THE MAP SHOWING THE TWO EMPIRES IS ALREADY ON THE PAGE! With a much less controversial colouring scheme and legend, I might add. Spanish_Empire#.22God_is_Spanish.22_.281596.E2.80.931626.29. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. You do not seem to understand what we have at hand here. Two non-POV neutral sources which support that Portugal was incorporated into the Spanish Empire. You have one source, which states the same (albeit much more vague), but can't be used anyway because there is controversy surrounding the work, and claims of bias from other historians.

What you are trying to do is throw us off. We're not stupid, that map shows the Portuguese territories as if they weren't part of the Spanish empire. Not only that, these territories are not in the anachronous map. The map that I put up, on the other hand, is perfectly accurate.

68.179.176.9 11:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I've been looking at the article in more detail and I find it very troubling that Henry Kamen is basically the main source for everything. This has to be changed according to wikipedia's rules. I suggest using Stanley G. Payne' work, as there is no controversy surrounding it and the author is a well known Iberian historian.

68.179.176.9 11:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Well, let's keep focused on the map first and then we'll move on to other questions. From the last response by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick it seems he no longer contends that the "Spanish Empire" was made out of several independent kingdoms under the authority of the same king, one of them being Portugal. Thus, Portugal and its empire had the same status as Aragon and its domains, Cataluña, Valencia or Navarra. Portugal even had a viceroy just like the other kingdoms.

Now to the map. What's the purpose of the map in the infobox? It seems it wants to show all territories that at one time or another where under the rule of the Spanish Monarchy. Was Portugal under the rule of the Spanish Monarchy? The answer is obviously yes, it was ruled by Spanish kings for eighty years. So, why should they be excluded? --Victor12 13:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

More quotes:

• Asia in the Making of Europe By Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley [3] : "According to the agreement signed by the King at Tomar in April, 1581, Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese were permitted to travel within the Spanish empire and to trade freely in Spain itself. The Portuguese were not to trade or settle in the Spanish empire; an idential prohibition applied to the Spanish with respect to the Portuguese empire."

• History of Portugal By Marques, Antonio Henrique R. de Oliveira [4] "From the middle of the sixteenth century on, the Portuguese Empire and its general economic organization - with its full impact on Portugal's ultimate destiny - formed a sort of complement to the Spanish Empire" - a mere complement? If the Portuguese empire ceased to exist and became part of the Spanish empire, the word "complement" wouldn't be very appropriate, would it?

• European Colonialism from Portuguese Expansion to the Spanish-America War By Hart, Jonathan Locke, Jonathan Hart [5] "From about 1600 onward, the Dutch, who were in the process of a long break with Spain while portugal had drawn closer in an Iberian union, created great problems worldwide for the Portuguese empire...In the final years of the sixteenth century the Dutch attacked Iberian colonies, while Spain and Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire." - again, the P and S empires are separate entities

• Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil By James Lockhart, Stuart B. Schwartz [6] "In 1580 the Spanish and Portuguese empires came under the joint rule of Philip II of Spain when the Portuguese Aviz dynasty died out. The two empires were kept administratively distinct, but the union did create problems and opportunities for both crowns."

What is abundantly clear from these quotes is that (a) historians consider by this stage the two political entities to be "Spain" and "Portugal", not the various sub-realms of the monarchy and (b) the two empires were administered separately. The pair of you are engaged in original research, and I'm now fed up of arguing about it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

As you like quotes so much let me repeat one of your own, the first one by Kamen: Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm. The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately. Union of free and autonomous states, thus Portugal's autonomy under Spanish kings was not an exception but rather the rule. Are you saying Kamen is lying here?

As for your more recent quotes, none of them actually claims Portugal was the only autonomous state in the empire. Furthermore, none of them deals with the Spanish Empire as a whole as you can see from the titles; they either study colonialism (in Latin America and Asia) or Portugal itself. Thus, they are the wrong place to look for info on how the Spanish Empire worked as a whole. I'd recommend reading books about the Spanish monarchy itself, for instance, The Hispanic World in Crisis and Change and Spain under the Habsburgs by John Lynch.

Let me repeat my argument. I'm not denying Portugal was an autonomous state under Spanish Kings. On the contrary, that was the normal state of things for the domains of Philip II and the rest of Spanish Habsburgs. So, why exclude Portugal and its empire from Philip's domains? --Victor12 00:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's an article about the Spanish Empire, not the Habsburg realms. The quotes I provide clearly demonstrate that historians distinguish the Spanish Empire from the Portuguese Empire during the time of the union of the crowns. Ergo, the Portuguese Empire should not appear as part of the Spanish Empire on a map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The article currently states: Because of this, many historians use "Habsburg" and "Spanish" almost interchangeably when referring to the dynastic inheritance of Charles V or Philip II. What did the domains of Philip II had in common? The only thing that tied together all the territories included in this article was allegiance to the same king, aside from this, each state had its own laws, taxes, even its own Parliaments as you can see in any book about this period. There was no unified Spanish State until the Bourbons in the XVIII century, just personal unions, this applies to Castilla, Aragón, the Low Countries as well as Portugal. --Victor12 00:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the technical details of the union of the crowns, historians distinguish Spain v Portugal and Spanish Empire vs Portuguese Empire. You are free to deny the usage of the term "Spain" during this era in spite of its usage by historians, but thankfully one of the founding principles of WP is that editors' own original research is not allowed to pollute articles. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep labeling it as original research. I smell denial in the air, considering the sources we have and the ones you lack. 68.179.176.9 01:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Sources I lack? I'll repeat two of them for your benefit that spell it out in english simple enough for a ten year old to understand:

• Asia in the Making of Europe By Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley [7] : "According to the agreement signed by the King at Tomar in April, 1581, Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese were permitted to travel within the Spanish empire and to trade freely in Spain itself. The Portuguese were not to trade or settle in the Spanish empire; an idential prohibition applied to the Spanish with respect to the Portuguese empire."

• Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil By James Lockhart, Stuart B. Schwartz [8] "In 1580 the Spanish and Portuguese empires came under the joint rule of Philip II of Spain when the Portuguese Aviz dynasty died out. The two empires were kept administratively distinct, but the union did create problems and opportunities for both crowns."

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeat? You never revealed them.

And again that doesn't state that Portugal was independant, it was autonomous. This means nothing as Spain was made up of autonomous entities. And as my source stated, its status was no different than any of the other viceroyalties. And yes Portugal had a viceroy as Victor was kind enough to point out. In fact what you are doing here is interpreting autonomous and seperate as independant. The only one doing original research here is you:

Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative or historical interpretation."

68.179.176.9 01:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

If you are going to engage in a debate, please READ it before swanning in and gracing us with your intelligence and education. If you bother to scroll up, you'll see I posted them several paragraphs up. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're supposed to keep arguments civil...

And you must have edited those in after I read the original message, I never saw them.

68.179.176.9 01:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Yes, that's right. I craftily inserted them afterwards. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you were right. I saw one of victor's posts end similarly and I thought that is where I left off. Still your behavior in unacceptable. 68.179.176.9 01:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Ok, now that I've read this I'll comment firstly that the second source you quote is from an author with a Portuguese name. That could easily be a biased point of view. Just as Spanish historians should be kept from being a source as much as possible.

Secondly, the Spanish Hapsburgs are what historians refer to as the Spanish empire. They were the political entity uniting Spain. The Spanish Hapsburgs spoke Spanish, had their government based in Spain, and had a majority of Spanish administrators and generals. Hence why they are called the Spanish Hapsburgs. Portugal became one of the territories of the Spanish empire when the Spanish king took the crown (which needed an invasion army to secure it). Red, seriously even your sources are agreeing with this, you are just interpreting autonomous in the incorrect way. 68.179.176.9 02:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Your approach seems to be to rubbish whichever historians I quote. In all honesty, who do you think the community of editors will believe - you, or published authors? Come on, get real. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear...first of all everything I have claimed is sourced, I'm not conjuring this up on the spot. I am only commenting on a fact that could disagree with wikipedia's policies, simple as that.

Anyways, look at this quote of yours: Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese . How is this backing you up? All your sources simply claim it was autonomous. Notice how it says Portugal had substantial control over its territories. 68.179.176.9 02:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

This argument is going nowhere. I've debated with you enough. Good night. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Original research...? All historians dealing with "Spain" under the Habsburgs understand "Spanish Empire" as the domains of the "Spanish kings", nothing else. Not one of them tries to prove that Spain existed as a nation in the 16th and 17th centuries. But as you'll probably won't believe my words, I'll try to hit the library tomorrow for sourcing. Please be patient, more is coming :-) --Victor12 02:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

While we're waiting, here's another source.

• • The History of Portugal By James Maxwell Anderson [9] "Felipe...swore not to meddle in the customs and laws of his new acquisition, to maintain the current system of government and not to appoint Spaniards to high office in Portugal, and, in general, this pledge was kept. The overseas empires of both nations remained separate."

Let me just repeat those words again, because they are key to this discussion. The overseas empires of both nations remained separate Does it have to be spelled out any clearer than that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, seperate or autonomous don't equal independent. We know that the territories themselves were continued to be run by Portuguese people (except under Philip IV), however as the sources say it was under the same political freedom as any other Spanish state. You're interpreting seperate and autonomous incorrectly. 68.179.176.9 13:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

To remind you, this discussion is about whether Portuguese colonies should be shown on a map of the Spanish Empire. And to repeat my last source: The overseas empires of both nations remained separate. It doesn't get any clearer than that. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, and again, seperate doesn't mean independent. As the sources say, administratively it was identical to the other states making up the Spanish empire.

Here's another source on the subject, from the library of congress: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+pt0040)

Good example of the power Spain held over the Portuguese. It says the Portuguese refer to this period as the time of Spanish captivity.

I might also like to add, though this is a bit off topic, that the Spanish empire was the first global empire because it had territories on every continent unlike Portugal (Portugal never had any territories in Europe, north America, and I think they hadn't any in Oceania either). 68.179.176.9 13:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Look, I'm not - and no historian as far as I can see - is denying that the Spanish monarch was unpopular in Portugal, nor that he was Spanish and nor that he was the monarch. By definition, being the ruler he held ultimate sway over Portugal and its colonies. However, he was Felipe I of Portugal and Felipe II of Spain. Portugal continued to exist as a separate crown and state, and the Empire continued to exist as a separate Empire - administered separately, and with clear boundaries (Spaniards not allowed to settle in the Portuguese Empire and Portugese not allowed to settle in the Spanish; Jesuits and Fransiscans not allowed to enter each others' preaching grounds - e.g. Japan vs Philippines). To get back to the point: the empires were separate and the maps should reflect this. I challenge you to provide, in a published book (not a website - anyone can post what they like on the internet without peer review), a map of the Spanish Empire showing the Portuguese colonies subsumed into it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

1. He was also King of Naples, King of Aragon, etc etc.

2. Portugal wasn't an independant state. It was under the same administration as the rest of the states making up the Spanish empire.

3. The map should reflect all the territories making up the Spanish empire, no matter how autonomous they were. All those running the Portuguese territories were ethnically Portuguese, but were ultimately Spanish subjects.

4. As far as I know Victor is doing exactly that today, according to his last post. Still the sources I have given, though not containing a map, back us up quite strongly. And these are good sources. I have given books: Stanley G. Payne, and Encyclopedia Britannica. Plus the books you have sourced ironically back us up as well. 68.179.176.9 14:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Your style of argument reminds me somewhat of trying to have a rational discussion with a religious person: they will always rewrite the groundrules of the discussion such that it is impossible to refute what they are saying. I provide a source from a published author, your response is to not address the author's points, but to attack the author (an ad hominem argument). I provide sources from other published authors, your response is to say that I am interpreting them incorrectly. It's a pointless exercise debating with you, so I rather feel I am wasting my time. At least Victor is attempting to find some published material that backs up his point of view, as I have done. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually the full title for Phillip II was King of León and Castilla (as Phillip II), of Aragón, of Portugal, of Naples, and of Jerusalem (as Phillip I), of Navarre (as Phillip III), of Granada, of Valencia, of Toledo, of Galicia, of Mallorca, of Seville, of Sardinia, of Córdoba, of Corsica, of Murcia, of Jaén, of the Algarbes, of Algeciras, of Gibraltar, of the Canaries Islands, of the Indies, of the Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano, Count of Barcelona (as Phillip I), Lord of Vizcaya and of Molina, Duke of Athens and of Neopatria, Count of Rosellón and of Cerdaña, Marquis of Oristán and of Gociano, Duke of Burgundy (as Phillip V), of Brabante, of Milan, Count of Flandes and of Tirol, etc. So, as you see Portugal was no exception. Now I'm leaving for the library. --Victor12 14:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

It is a common problem at Wikipedia that well intentioned contributors get hung up on technicalities and wish to make articles absolutely "correct" even when that goes against the standards of academia. From my reading (and please note, I have a substantial personal library downstairs), King Philip is referred to as Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Historians do not go to great lengths to spell out his full title, or to describe "Spain" as a patchwork of substates, one of which is Portugal from 1580-1640. Historians use the terms "Spain" and "Portugal", "Spanish Empire" and "Portuguese Empire". The article should follow the standards of the academic community, not the original research of well intentioned authors who wish to be "absolutely correct". Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, goes against the standards of academia? Are you not acknowledging the sources all of a sudden? Also, anything from your reading is original research. 68.179.176.9 15:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

If I am understanding your proposal correctly, I find it vastly impossible. Because where exactly is the standard set? 68.179.176.9 15:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I read the Wikipedia policy you linked to. It basically says there isn't a problem if the source is acceptable. Guess what, all the sources mentioned are more than acceptable. I don't know if you're just grasping for straws or what, it doesn't make sense. 68.179.176.9 15:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Your style of argument reminds me somewhat of trying to have a rational discussion with a religious person: they will always rewrite the groundrules of the discussion such that it is impossible to refute what they are saying. I provide a source from a published author, your response is to not address the author's points, but to attack the author (an ad hominem argument). I provide sources from other published authors, your response is to say that I am interpreting them incorrectly. It's a pointless exercise debating with you, so I rather feel I am wasting my time. At least Victor is attempting to find some published material that backs up his point of view, as I have done. I look forward to seeing what he comes up with. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You can belittle me all you want. It wont affect me. I haven't "attacked" any of the authors without reason. Or are you saying that I'm incorrect in my judgement of them? Isn't it policy in wikipedia to avoid controversial or possibly biased sources? I have no problem with the majority of your sources. But unfortunately those sources don't back what you claim.

I claim that Portugal was just another state making up the Spanish empire. All of the sources posted back this. All of the sources are 100% acceptable. If you have any problem with my sources be free to tell me what the problem is. I don't know how many times I have to post this.

And I'm afraid if you can't refute the statements that message of yours was responding to, you've already lost this argument. 68.179.176.9 20:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

[edit] THE infobox removed

Imperio Español Spanish Empire 1492 – 1898 Cross of Burgundy Coat of arms Capital Toledo (until 1561) Madrid (after 1561) Language(s) Spanish Religion Roman Catholic Government Monarchy Monarch  - 1516-1556 Charles I  - 1886-1898 Alfonso XIII¹ Regent  - 1886-1898 Maria Christina History  - Discovery of America 1492  - Conquest of the Aztec Empire 1519-1521  - Conquest of the Inca Empire 1532–1537  - Spanish-American War 1898 Currency Real, Escudo ¹ Queen Maria Christina of Austria served as regent during the minority of her son Alfonso XIII until 1902.

Hi, just wanted to leave clear that this infobx helps a LOT with many key data, do we really have remove it because they don't have either at other empire pages?--Andersmusician VOTE 04:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, the infobox looks cool and it's helpful. I wonder why it was removed. Should be restored IMHO --Victor12 04:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The start and end date on the infobox are wrong and very controversial among other things. better just leave the infobox out. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.205.33 (talk) 06:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

There is evidence that the Spanish Empire is still around however meager. If the infobox is added it will just start edit wars on the dates and then the same ideas might be applied to the other empires articles such as the british empire starting more edit wars. Dont add it please.--71.252.205.33 06:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Skidbladnir

It will just be a source of disputes: dates, flags, succeeded by/preceded by, whether or not the empire was a former country. And no other European empire article has an info box. The article has survived for many years without one, leave it be. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, we don't want any more disputes, do we? ;-) I think the problem with this article is that it lacks a clear definition of what is understood by "Spanish Empire", hence all the problems with the map and the infobox. If we can get a properly sourced definition maybe we can work them out. --Victor12 23:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The "Spanish Empire"

It seems to me our current problem with the map stems from a lack of clarity about what is understood by the term "Spanish Empire". Does it include all the territories dominated by Spanish kings or only those dominated by "Spain"? If it's the former, then Portugal and its colonies need to be included in the map, if it's the latter, they shouldn't. IMHO, to solve this problem we need to look at books dealing with the "Spanish Empire" and its character rather than books about colonialism or Portugal as the latter only provide a partial view of what the empire was.

I've been rereading some books on this for references purposes, so far most of them are from Spanish authors or Spanish translations. I'll try to find more books in English on Monday or Tuesday, they were at another library :-( In the meantime I have some interesting quotes from one of the leading historians of "Imperial Spain": John Huxtable Elliott

As for the character of the Empire:

One of the greatest empires in world history is known to us as the Spanish Empire but this is not the name by which it was known to Spaniards themselves (...) Their monarch was not an emperor but a king ruling over an agglomerate of territories known as la monarquía española ("The Spanish Monarchy") and consists of Spain itself, the possesions of the king in Italy and northern Europe, and his American territories, known to Spaniards as las Indias. John H. Elliott, Spain and its world, 1500-1700: selected essays, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), p. 7.

As for what the Empire consisted of:

In mentally and physically breaking out beyond the confines of the Pillars of Hercules into a wider world, the Spaniards were conscious of achieving something that surpassed even the feats of the Romans. They were on their way to a universal empire which was genuinely universal, in the sense of being global. This global advance can be simply plotted by a series of dates: the 1490s and 1500s, the conquest of the Caribbean; the 1520s, the conquest of Mexico; the 1530s, the conquest of Peru; the 1560s, the Phillipines; the 1580s, the annexation of Portugal and the consequent acquisition of Portuguese Africa, the Far East, and Brazil. From this moment the empire of the king of Spain was indeed one on which the sun never set. John H. Elliott, Spain and its world, 1500-1700: selected essays, p. 8.

As for the status of Portugal within the empire:

Portugal was united to Castile in 1580 in exactly the same way as the crown of Aragon had united to Castile a hundred years before, preserving its own laws, institutions, and monetary system, and united only in sharing a common sovereign. John H. Elliott, Imperial Spain, 1469-1716, (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1963), p. 274.

From this quotes it seems clear to me that:

• The Spanish Empire was composed of the domains of the Spanish king
• Thus, it included Portugal and its colonies from 1580 to 1640 according to Elliott
• The Spanish Empire contained within itself autonomous regions and kingdoms. Portugal was not an special case but a repetition of what had occurred earlier with Aragon. So, if you want to exclude Portugal from the Spanish Empire on the grounds of its autonomy you'll also need to exclude Aragon and its Mediterranean domains.

I'll try to post more sources in English over the next days. Please be patient, no libraries here until Monday. In the meantime please try to consider the point I made on the first paragraph, that in order to solve this dispute we need to focus on what the Spanish Empire was as a whole rather than on studies of its constituent parts. --Victor12 22:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I must point out there that all these quotes are from the same author. However, as you have taken the time to find a published source, let's look at some other words later on in the same book (found here: [10]) On page 121 the author says: "The Dutch had taken advantage of the truce (in 1609 - during the Union) to penetrate the Portuguese colonial empire, with potentially grave repercussions for the delicate relationship between Castile and Portugal." Surely, if the Portuguese Empire had ceased to exist during this time and had become subsumed into the Spanish Empire, your author wouldn't be referring to it as the Portuguese colonial empire? Again on page 235, "Castile's sense of national humiliation was increased by the truce with the Dutch in 1609, and bitterness grew as the Dutch exploited the years of peace to prise their way into the overseas empires of Spain and Portugal." Just to remind you what we are debating: you are trying to add a map that shows the "Spanish" empire as Spain+Portugal. Yet the very same author you are using as a reference distinguishes the Spanish and Portuguese Empires, during the time of the Union. This is exactly my point. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, those are excellent. They are very clear and directly address the issue at hand unlike the sources posted before them. Thank you Victor.

As for the definition of the Spanish empire, I think it would be everything under the domain of the King at the time for a few reasons:

1. The Spanish Hapsburgs were based in what is currently part of Spain (Castile).

2. They spoke Castilian (the most prominent Spanish dialect).

3. Most of the administrative positions were held by Spaniards (meaning Basques, Catalans, Castilians, etc.)

4. Most of their military commanders were, again, Spaniards.

5. And last but not least, the simple fact that they are labeled as Spanish Hapsburgs. 68.179.176.9 22:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Red, the fact that he states Spain annexed Portugal pretty much overrides that. He could simply call it Portuguese because it was still run by ethnic Portuguese people. That doesn't change that fact that the Spanish empire was sovereign of those lands. What you claim is just an interpretation of the adjective Portuguese. Just as my interpretation above, which is equally as valid as yours. The fact he states, as I said, overrides both. 68.179.176.9 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Point me to a map of the Spanish Empire in a published source that has subsumed the Portuguese territories into it. Go on, show me one. I challenge you to. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm busy with Fluid Mechanics and Strength of Materials, I certainly don't have time to spend in the library this weekend. But I'd be happy to look for one during the week, I'll hit any historical atlas available there. 68.179.176.9 23:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I haven't been to the library yet, will probably do so towards the end of the week. However I was looking at one of my books and a different map describes Portugal as part of Spain which I thought should be added to the list of sources. It's a map describing the revolts in the Iberian peninsula from 1520-1652, and with Portugal it reads: inherited by Philip II of Spain, 1580; in revolt against Spain from 1640; recognized as independent 1668.

The book is: The Times Complete History of the World, edited by Richard Overy. Anything related to The Times is a good source in my opinion.

As I said then I'll look for an actual map of the empire later in the week. 68.179.176.9 12:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Was in the library today for a few minutes and I managed to look into a couple of historical atlases. I wasn't able to find any map of the Spanish Empire between 1580-1640. But I did stumble upon a map with Portuguese colonies in India and southeast Asia and it was labeled 1498-1580. I'll try to go to another library next week (very busy, one test on Friday and another on Monday).

The historical atlas with that map was simply titled Historical Atlas, and it was by William R. Shepherd. The map is on page 112.

68.179.176.9 16:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Hello fellow editors! I'm currently swamped with work so I don't have much time for library research, though I certainly plan to get back to you on this. It seems to me, the main points in this discussion are two

• Portugal was not an special region of the Spanish Habsburgs domains, as it had the same status as other regions considered part of the "Spanish Empire" such as Aragon. This is the point made by User:68.179.176.9 and me.
• No modern scholar considers Portugal and its empire to have formed part of the Spanish Empire, for instance, there are no maps showing both of them as a single entity in modern scholarship. This is the argument of User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick.

I'm I right in this sum up? We still need to look more sources to clear this up. Books on the "Spanish Empire" would be the most useful. --Victor12 17:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a fair summary, though I would also dispute that Portugal was directly comparable with Aragon in 1580: historians refer to Philip II as King of Spain and King of Portugal. He is not referred to as King of Castile and Aragon and Portugal (and whatever else besides), even if that was his "official" title. By 1580, historians just refer to Spain as Spain, despite the patchwork of crowns that officially composed it (and still do to this day, I might add). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Spain refers to everything possessed by the Spanish Hapsburg at the time. We have several sources stating that the autonomy of Portugal wasn't unique within the empire. And you want us to ignore this because some sources refer to a king of Portugal (which I don't recall seeing)?

I'm hoping once I get this map you'll accept reality once and for all. 68.179.176.9 20:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

So you're denying he is referred to as King of Portugal? What have you read, beyond a Times Historical Atlas? Try this book The Grand Strategy of Philip II By Geoffrey Parker [11] "At his coronation as king of Portugal in 1581...". Or this book, The Colonial Spanish-American City: Urban Life in the Age of Atlantic Capitalism By Jay Kinsbruner, [12] "he was also the king of Portugal". In the index pages of England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel By MR James McDermott [13], "Philip II, as King of Portugal". Let's move onto Philip III of Spain and II of Portugal, if that is not enough for you. Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto [14] "the King of Portugal, Philip II (Philip III of Spain)". I know you strongly believe in your own original research - you're free to write it on your own website or in your own book - just not at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course Philip II was crowned king of Portugal, as he had just inherited this country. However, can you find a source of Philip III of Spain being crowned as king of Portugal?

As for the second one, the full quote is He began selling lesser governmental posts, first in Iberia (as he was also the king of Portugal) and then in the colonies. That's just a clarification to remark that Portugal was also part of his domains, don't look too much into it.

As for the third one, it's just an index

As for the fourth one that's just the Portuguese point of view. You could also find other titles for Philip II in books about Aragon or Cataluña. --Victor12 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more. I'm enjoying this.

• Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto [15] "On the eighteenth of August Philip of Spain was proclaimed king of Portugal"
• Historical and Descriptive Account of British India [16] "The exclusive right, however, to this line of navigation was claimed by Philip II., who had now succeeded as King of Portugal" (an old one, this book, goes back to 1832 - historians have obviously been agreed on this point for a while now)
• History of Portugal By Marques, Antonio Henrique R. de Oliveira [17] "he was solemnly sworn in and acclaimed King of Portugal with the title Philip I".

I rest my case. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the first one, see above. As for the second one kind of the same. Also as this is a book on the Indies it is not necessary to mention Philip's other titles but it is important to mention his status as king of Portugal. As for the second one, see above (again :-) So, can you find a source (even Portuguese ones) that say Philip III was crowned king of Portugal? --Victor12 23:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we are heading off point here, and am not getting drawn into an irrelevant side debate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were resting your case on these points, sorry. Anyway, I think it is an important point that Philip II was crowned king of Portugal because he had just acquired that realm, however, Philip III was never crowned as such as he inherited the whole empire (Portugal included) from his father. --Victor12 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was just responding to your buddy's "...you want us to ignore this because some sources refer to a king of Portugal (which I don't recall seeing)". Anyway, I could equally ask you to prove he wasn't "crowned" as king of Portugal, as presumably there was some form of coronation. It needn't have been a separate coronation to that of the Spanish crown, and if it wasn't a worthy enough coronation to be mentioned by historians, you can hardly use failure to mention the coronation at all as confirmation that he was not crowned king of Portugal. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Our buddy, ;-) As for coronation, there were no crowning ceremonies for the Spanish Habsburgs. You can search all you want, you won't find any crowning in Madrid for them. What they do was swear to uphold the laws of each of the realms, for instance before the "Cortes" of Aragón and so on. The point I'm trying to make is that Portugal was not treated differently from the rest of the empire. Philip II was crowned king of Portugal just to incorporate it to its dominions. Thereafter it was part of the same unit, so there was no need for separate Portuguse crownings for Philip III and Philip IV. --Victor12 01:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I'm not sure where you will find this magic map, but you don't just have to find one map. You will have to show that it is the consensus of historians to draw maps of empires at the time with Portuguese colonies labelled as Spanish. You will have to show that it is the consensus of historians to not refer to the "Portuguese" and "Spanish" empires between the years of 1580 and 1640 - just to the "Spanish" empire (as though the "Portuguese" one mysteriously disappeared for sixty years). You'd have to provide quotes from historians such as "the Spanish colony of Brazil" or "the Spanish colony of Macau". Had you done much reading on the subject, you'd know that historians do not do this. They don't do this because it wasn't the case. The colonies remained Portuguese, in language, culture, religion (Jesuit vs Franciscans), defence and adminstration. You don't have to go to the library to find this out: try books.google.com. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So you're denying he is referred to as King of Portugal? What have you read, beyond a Times Historical Atlas? Try this book The Grand Strategy of Philip II By Geoffrey Parker [11] "At his coronation as king of Portugal in 1581...". Or this book, The Colonial Spanish-American City: Urban Life in the Age of Atlantic Capitalism By Jay Kinsbruner, [12] "he was also the king of Portugal". In the index pages of England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel By MR James McDermott [13], "Philip II, as King of Portugal". Let's move onto Philip III of Spain and II of Portugal, if that is not enough for you. Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto [14] "the King of Portugal, Philip II (Philip III of Spain)". I know you strongly believe in your own original research - you're free to write it on your own website or in your own book - just not at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the quotes you have listed so far in this discussion. I thought it would be obvious.

Also, what I meant is he wasn't known as the king of Portugal first and formost, he was known as the king of Spain. Those quotes just comfirm that he inherited the crown.

I'm afraid we're going to need mediation for this in the end. You keep derailing this argument. All of your reasoning is very superficial, whereas we are basing our arguments on the facts of the administration of the empire rather than what adjective is used when describing territories.

How many maps will it take for it to be considered consensus by the way? Because obviously I can't count them all up.

68.179.176.9 20:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Given that you haven't been able to provide one yet, I wouldn't worry yet about counting them up. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I only had half an hour between classes to do it last time. But after my test on Monday, I'll be free to go the the library downtown. The fact is I simply couldn't find any map of the empire in this period at all, so I haven't found anything that contradicts me either. Anyways, I'd say 3 maps should be enough to show it's consensus. 68.179.176.9 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I had enough time to go to the library between classes today and I found another source.

In 1580-81, Philip II of Spain, claiming the throne, conquered Portugal and acquired its empire, but national sovereignty was restored by the revolution of 1640 and the accession of John IV, founder of the Bragança dynasty, to the Portuguese throne. Worldmark Encyclopedia of the Nations, Europe, Tenth edition, Gale group. 68.179.176.9 16:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Couldn't find any maps, eh? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Have you two checked out the introduction to the Spanish Empire at Encarta? [18]. "At its greatest extent", the second paragraph begins - so we'd expect the Portuguese territories to be included, if you two are right, no? "in the Americas, Spanish territory stretched from Alaska through the western United States, Mexico, and Central America to southern Chile and Patagonia, and from the state of Georgia south to the Caribbean islands, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina." (No mention of Brazil!) "In Africa, at various times Spain occupied territories in the Western Sahara (present-day Morocco), and along the coast of what is now Equatorial Guinea, including the offshore island of Fernando Póo (now Bioko)." (No mention of the territories that would later become Guinea-Bisseau, Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Angola) "In Asia, Spain ruled the Philippine Islands, which the Spanish named after King Philip II in 1542." (No mention of Malacca, Macau, Goa, East Timor or Diu) Yet more evidence that the academic consensus is that, if we are to draw an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire, which by definition shows its greatest extent, THE PORTUGUESE COLONIES SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED!!!!!!!! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find any maps within the period at all. Also, that article seems to refer to a certain date when the Spanish empire was at its largest (under Charles III of Bourbon), it isn't anachronous. Don't worry, I'll find a map of the Spanish empire between 1580 and 1640 eventually, but I'm very busy. 68.179.176.9 23:14, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Your quest reminds me somewhat of Juan Ponce de León's search for the Fountain of Youth. I'd suggest you concentrate on your studies (fluid dynamics did you say?) instead of engaging in fruitless searches for something that is non-existent. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 01:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

How dramatic. I looked into 5-6 historical atlases, and I didn't find any map in the period at all. What makes you think it's non-existant? Tomorrow I'll try to go to the larger library downtown. 68.179.176.9 14:08, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

The Penguin Atlas of Modern History : to 1815 by Colin McEvedy, on the page entitled "The World in 1600 - Political Units". [19]. "Philip II of Spain obtained the Portuguese crown in 1580. However the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And what about Portugal itself? Would that be part of the Empire according to your sources? --Victor12 17:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what us arguing about that would achieve. The point is: should an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire show Portuguese colonies as of 1580-1640 as though they are a single legal and political entity along with the Spanish Empire? The answer is indisputably NO, for all the sources listed above that make the point they were distinct. The Portuguese Empire was left to administration by the Portuguese. Also, remember something: everything that you have said, everything our anon friend has said, and everything I have said, is all consistent with the other map which is labelled "Spanish and Portuguese Empires during the time of the Iberian Union", with the two in different colours. I am - and others are, if you read above - are just disputing your map which make a far, far stronger claim. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So Portugal was part of the Spanish Empire but its colonies weren't? --Victor12 17:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, did I say that? Like I said, I'm not getting into a discussion about this point. I have provided more than enough sources that back up the claim the two empires were distinct. If you want to continue this discussion you'll need to provide some sources that say they (the empires) weren't. You're own conclusions from statements such as "Spain 'conquered' Portugal" don't count I'm afraid - read WP:SYN. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw that same map (it was one of the atlases I looked at), and you ignored a very important part of that caption. It says that the Portuguese territories could be considered part of the empire. The author clearly contradicts the other sources by referring to Portugal as a special territory under Philip II, which it clearly was not. Needless to say I discarded the source, not only is he contradicting the other sources but he doesn't seem to be sure whether or not to include the territories in the first place.

And by the way, your indisputable sources claim it was distinct. Well, so were other parts of the empire. It's not a valid argument. 68.179.176.9 17:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

You have a very inflated sense of your own importance, don't you? You - a fluid mechanics student, barely in his twenties, I presume, perhaps even still in his teens - can "discard" the work of not only Henry Kamen, but now Colin McEvedy, deemed worthy enough for an obituary in the Times [20] and the Independent [21]? Why don't you take a few moments to read those obituaries and read about the man you are rubbishing? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not rubbishing him. I'm pointing out was he says in the caption, which you chose and are choosing to ignore.

Here's another source for the fact that the Spanish empire in this time was made up of multiple dynastic unions: http://www.gencat.net/catalunya/eng/historia/historia4.htm Portugal wasn't special. 68.179.176.9 18:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Is that the best you can come up with? A page on the history of Catalonia that doesn't even mention the words Spanish Empire, Portugal, the Iberian Union or the Portuguese Empire? I hear the sound of the bottoms of barrels being scraped... The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It states that during this period it was in a dynastic union, just as Portugal was. Sorry if that is too broad a concept for you to take in. 68.179.176.9 18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

I believe Victor is correct in his approach to this argument. We need to find a consensus for the definition of the Spanish empire. Was it everything ruled by the Spanish Hapsburgs? 68.179.176.9 18:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

No, I think I am now actually wasting my time. Either accept the article the way it is, or follow the Wikipedia dispute procedure. The first step in that after talk page discussion, which has now taken place ad nauseam, is opening up a request for comment. A word of advice though: you may find it easy to discard sources at will, but I highly doubt anyone will take your word over published authors. And you'll have to do a lot better than have as the backbone of your claim an argument based on synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The only author I (and many historians as I have showed) have a problem with is Henry Kamen. He has a controversial point of view of the empire, even going so far as to say the traditionally named Spanish Netherlands weren't part of the Spanish empire at all, among other things. So before it was original research, now it's synthesis? Right. 68.179.176.9 18:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Synthesis IS original research. From WP:SYN: "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research" That is the problem with synthesis - IT IS NOT FROM A PUBLISHED SOURCE. If you are going to contribute to Wikipedia, please take the time to read its policies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that most of my arguments are backed by published sources (the latest one is the only exception) which have been quoted to no end. 68.179.176.9 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward 68.179.176.9 18:23, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is based on synthesis just as much as mine is. Neither of us have a source saying explicitly that the Portuguese territories were part of the empire, nor that they were independent. We are both using reasoning that leads us to conclude so. 68.179.176.9 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

My argument is based on the following quotes, each from different authors, look further up the page if you want the names and titles:

• The overseas empires of both nations remained separate
• Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire
• (Spain and) Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire
• The two empires were kept administratively distinct
• the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You know, it's funny. I'm looking at the articles on the Spanish empire in other languages and they seem to agree with us. Look at this map in the German version: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/de/0/0c/Untergang_der_Armada.png 1580-1640 zu Spanien The Spanish and Italian versions also comply. I'm trying to check the others as well. 68.179.176.9 18:49, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

As you will be aware, having read up on Wikipedia's policies, Wikipedia can't be used as a reference for itself. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, those quotes don't say Portugal was independent. They say it was seperate, legally distinct, run by Portuguese. The first two argumets are countered by our own, which state that it was common throughout the empire. If you were to go by that argument, the Spanish empire wouldn't even exist. You see the problem here is Spain as we know it wasn't a unified country in this time period. It was more of a confederation of states under an absolute monarchy. Now we go back to the question victor proposed: what was the Spanish empire during this period? Because you just as well know that historians do refer to a Spanish empire.

And I know they (the other articles) can't be used as a source. I simply said it amused me. 68.179.176.9 18:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Look, I'm tired of arguing with you. We're obviously not going to convince each other. If you feel strongly enough about the matter that you want to get more views on it, open up a request for comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I kept looking for Spanish armada maps (never thought of it). Found one by Shepherd: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/europe1560_shepherd.jpg. This is probably taken from a published source, I'll look into it. Now I'll know how to get maps of the period. It's safe to say that if they include Portugal as part of the Spanish empire they back our case. 68.179.176.9 19:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

No, you need maps showing Goa, Diu, Timor, Malacca, Macau, the coasts of Brazil, Angola, Mozambique etc as part of the Spanish Empire. Anything else would be synthesis. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. Then we'll just add Portugal to the map in that case ;) 68.179.176.9 19:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

The Age of discovery 1340-1600 [22]; The Spread of Colonization, 1600-1700 [23] - both maps span the period of the union, not even a hint that the Spanish empire consumed the Portuguese for 60 years. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:48, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

A contemporary map from 1587, seven years after the union of the crowns commenced [24]. In it you can clearly see Bresilia, a Lusitanis (Latin for Portugal, in case you don't know). So the cartographers of the time didn't even draw maps the way you claim they should be. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Another one, this one by Mercator, in his 1595 atlas, fifteen years after the union of the crowns. [25] Brasilia a Portogale. Oh dear, your case isn't looking very strong is it? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:02, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

The map I provided is more specific. The first maps you provided convey a large swatch of time in which it could easily be deemed not necessary, plus they're from the same author as the one I first posted. Are you saying he suddenly changed his mind and decided Portugal wasn't part of the empire? The last two are questionable, they don't exactly look very up-to-date if you know what I mean. We need modern, accurate maps here not contemporary of the period.

I just came back from the library. Only took me half an hour to find 5 maps, and I barely even touched into the subject.

Map 1: Map of the world c. 1600 including Portuguese overseas territories in the Spanish empire, plus Portugal itself obviously. Page 64, Atlas of World History, by John Haywood, Ph.D.

Map 2: Map of Europe c. 1618 including Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 65, Atlas of World History, by John Haywood, Ph.D.

Map 3: Map of Europe including Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 142-143, A History of the Modern World, by R.R. Palmer and Joel Colton.

Map 4: Map of Europe includng Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 56, The History of Spain, by Peter Pierson.

Unfortunately for you, I have this book in my personal collection. It does not show Portugal as "part of the Spanish Empire". It has Portugal half-shaded with the colour of "Spanish Habsburgs". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Map 5: Map of Europe including Portugal as part of the Spanish empire. Page 91, The History Atlas of Europe, by Ian Barnes and Robert Hudson.

I'm guessing this wont be enough to convince you though, I'll go back tomorrow if that is the case. Now that I have the maps I'll see if I can find any accompanying text to add to our source list.

Funny, even the Portuguese version of this page includes the territories. 68.179.176.9 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Maps 2-5 are maps of Europe. We are discussing a world map of the Spanish and Portuguese empires here. So that leaves you with one map, in a book that covers world history from the beginning of human time to the present day in 121 maps (hardly a work that a historian would have on their shelves - more of a child's stocking present to help with their history homework). Hardly a convincing source. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So now you're arguing that Portugal can be accepted as part of the Spanish Empire but not its colonies? --Victor12 22:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You aren't using the synthetic argument that because maps of Iberia at the time have the border between Spain and Portugal removed that Wikipedia should have a map of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires with the border removed. So far, one map has been provided, and it wasn't even in a source that specializes on the history of the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. Instead it was in a reference book for laypeople. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

It's an atlas written by a Ph.D.

And what kind of child reads a historical atlas? Just because it has plenty of images?

Oh, and so according to you we can add in Portugal but not its territories? Fine by me, it's a step. 68.179.176.9 22:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Oooh he's got a PhD! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: http://img444.imageshack.us/img444/6528/spanishempireworldmapop0.png Verdict?

Oh and I could do without the childish comments. I've already put up with multiple attacks on my person during the entire discussion. 68.179.176.9 23:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Personally, I would colour the map in two shades, one for the overseas Spanish colonial empire, and one for the European territories that came not through maritime exploration and conquistadors but through dynastic inheritance. I would then have no problem with Portugal being shaded in the second colour along with the Netherlands, Sicily etc. The point behind this map would be that the two "types" of territory were entirely different beasts. Incidentally, I do not deny that you will find maps of Iberia marked "K. of Spain" (I seem to recall even Mr McEvedy does this). I do however deny that it is the norm to imply (either in a map or in words) that the Portuguese Empire ceased to exist for 60 years. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it ceased to exist, I'm saying it was incorporated into the Spanish crown which is as you can see what historians refer to as the Spanish empire at this time. And I'm glad you're coming to a reasonable agreement. However there's a problem: how do we deal with Castile and Aragon? They were in a dynastic union. Philip the II was the first Spanish Hapsburg, and he inherited Castile and Aragon as seperate crowns among the other territories. I don't see why you have an issue with the map I put up in the first place: it describes the Portuguese territories as ruled jointly under the Spanish sovereign. 68.179.176.9 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

No, this is what you were changing it to "in the first place". [26] "An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898)", it said. And as you can see from some of my quotes, historians (who specialise in this particular area) refer to the Spanish and Portuguese empires, Spain and Portugal, distinct from each other, during this time. So please don't claim all "historians" to be on your side here. As for Castile and Aragon, by this stage of history, "Spain" is used to refer to Castile and Aragon. The crowns of Castile and Aragon are still technically separate. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

You just said you would accept adding Portuguese territories in a shade described as gained through inheritence. Or do you mean just Portugal should be added in that shade? And Spain as you describe it wasn't really so until the Bourbon dynasty. As far as I know there is no title such as King of Castile or King of Aragon in this day. 68.179.176.9 23:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Nevermind, there are such titles. Still it doesn't really affect the argument. 68.179.176.9 23:52, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

OK, I reread your post and realized you meant European territories. Well, I suggest we keep it simple. If the map that is already up is acceptable my version of it should be too. 68.179.176.9 00:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

A message for Victor: here [27] (p17) is a map of the world, in 1600, showing the Spanish and Portuguese empires distinct, from our friend Colin McEvedy. On page 35 is a map of Europe, in 1600, showing Portugal subsumed into Spain. As for Edward, "keeping it simple" is the problem: it has the potential to mislead. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Another approach is adopted by the Penguin Atlas of World History [28] page 242 - the empires are shown as one but labelled the Spanish-Portuguese Colonial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember what he says in the caption of the first map. I don't remember exactly but it's something along the lines of: more could be added to this map since Philip II inherited the Portuguese crown. Then he goes on to say (as you quoted) that it retained its administration of the empire. So obviously it is a matter of opinion according to him, or he wouldn't state the possibility of those territories being included. And if it's OK for the Netherlands, the Burgundian lands, etc to be shown in the same shade now, why is it all of a sudden an issue if we include Potugal in the map? 68.179.176.9 13:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

We are arguing about a map here. Forget the caption (which says it "could" be drawn that way - sure it could be - but he goes on to say HOWEVER blah blah blah and then draws the map differently to you) - the map is clear and unambiguous. Anyway, how's this as a compromise:

. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 14:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

ps click on the image to see the summary The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 14:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We're at the compromising stage! That's an improvement. Now let me see the map... Hmmm, I think that if you're gonna show the Portuguese border in the Iberian Peninsula you should also show the borders of the crowns of Aragon and Navarra as both were inherited in much the same way as Portugal and The Lower Countries. BTW, what's the baseline year for this map from Philip II on or from the Catholic Monarchs. That's necessary if you want to separate inherited countries from conquered ones. There are also some minor corrections needed. Genoa is shaded as part of the Spanish Empire when that was never the case. Also in Italy the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies seems to extend as far north as Rome which was not the case. --Victor12 15:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I still think McEvedy's map isn't exactly as clear as you put it. Either way, as for the map you suggest, I still think the definition of Spain in this time needs to be cleared. 68.179.176.9 17:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

How is the map not clear when it has a date 1600, a section of the Americas labelled "Spanish" and a series of dots labelled "Portuguese"? Who, I ask you, would not find that as clear as crystal? FYI, McEvedy does the same - differentiating Spanish and Portuguese possessions - in maps for 1600 in The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Pacific [29], and in The Penguin Atlas of African History [30]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, we need definitions. Maybe even divide the article in Spanish Habsburgs Empire and Spanish Bourbons Empire or just Spanish Monarchy Empire? --Victor12 17:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and another issue with the map is there are territories that are missing as well: the northern portion of the Netherlands wasn't always independent. Plus some short-lived territories are also missing that are in the other map. Northern Taiwan was Spanish for 17 years (they had two forts there, and a few geographical features even have Spanish names), and part of New Guinea also shows up in some maps I've come by. Genoa wasn't part, but it was a very small territory and it might be tough to seperate it from Milan and make it look presentable. As for Rome, that can easily be fixed (just remove the top-left corner of the Italian shaded area). 68.179.176.9 17:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Well, all I did was recolour the existing map. Those things can be fixed. What is your evidence that Formosa had Spanish forts???? Dutch, don't you mean? I see you both also conveniently failed to respond to this map I provided - I'll repeat: Another approach is adopted by the Penguin Atlas of World History [31] page 242 - the empires are shown as one but labelled the Spanish-Portuguese Colonial Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Another map. C. R. Boxer (probably the most respected English language historian of Portuguese imperial history) The Dutch Seaborne Empire [32] - page 101 - in a map entitled "Dutch conquests in the West Indies and Brazil" - Bahia is marked as Portuguese, at the time the Dutch nabbed it, in the year of 1624. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's clear some ideas. Philip II's army entered Portugal to secure his position as heir to the Portuguese throne (as the Council of Governors of Portugal, that ruled Portugal after the death of king Henry, appointed, against Anthony and other pretenders). So, it was not an invasion of Portugal by Spain, it was a pretenders war, in this case a pretender that was king of another kingdom (half portuguese, remember Philip's mother was portuguese and he was educated in the portuguese way too). Philip won the war and was acclaimed Philip I of Portugal. The Cortes of Tomar clearly stated that Portugal and the other iberian kingdoms ("Spain") would remain separated, two crowns, one king. So, it was not an annexation but a personal union of two countries. So, de jure Portugal and Spain were never united. In Portugal vice-kings were created not to rule Portugal from Spain but to rule Portugal as an extension of the king's power, i.e. vice-kings were part of the Portuguese hierarquical system but not of Spain, the same way counstries and enterprises today have vice-presidents, they are part of the country/enterprise system and have nothing to do with other countries/enterprises. In particular, they were created to substitute the king in Portugal as the king lived in Spain, to fill the gap that portuguese people felt without a resident king. Now let's see the de facto. Spain (I mean Castile+Aragon+Navarre) had an empire, Portugal another. When the personal union began, both country interests are respected, as it sould be. Portuguese empire was administrated by Portugal, not by Spain, and Spanish empire was administrated by Spain, not by Portugal. So, both empires were de facto separated, as none of the countries had power to control the other empire. It is an error call it Habsburg empire, because it was never an empire, but two (it did not have a centralised rule nor one part of it controlled the other). That way Iberian empire is also incorrect. Even worst is called it Spanish empire, as Spain, once synonymous of Iberia, now (XVI century) started to refer only to Castile+Aragon(+Navarre), other personal union that started a century before. And also because today Spain is clearly different from Iberia. So, Portuguese empire was not part of the Spanish empire. Of course Portugal, who ruled its empire, was also not part of the Spanish empire. You can't rule a territory independently if you're controlled by someone else. Câmara 20:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Welcome aboard, my friend. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

First in response to Red: I can't see any map in that link. Tell me the page in the book and I'll check it out later. And to Camara, as has been shown through the multiple souces that are probably way up there by now, Portugal was in the same condition as any other Hapsburg territory. It retianed its laws, and administration of the territories. Secondly, you need sources for what you claim. Most of what I read there is opinion. Also, the maps I provided clearly contradict your view. I'm sorry if it hurts your national pride, even Red admits that at least Portugal should be added. You say that Portugal was seperate because it was in a dynastic union. Well, sorry to say that Portugal isn't unique in that regard either. All the sources are posted in the long discussion we have had. I'd recommend you read it if you haven't already. 68.179.176.9 21:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Page 242. Also, Edward, you did misrepresent the Pierson book map. It does not show Portugal as "part of the Spanish Empire". It has Portugal half-shaded with the colour of "Spanish Habsburgs". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome Càmara, the more the merrier :-). Now for your argument, I think the key lies here: So, it was not an annexation but a personal union of two countries. That's correct but it also applies to all the other kingdoms which integrated the Spanish Monarchy, for instance Aragón and Navarra. As I stated above in a quote by John Elliot, what we now call the "Spanish Empire" was in fact the "Spanish Monarchy" made up of several autonomous kingdoms.

Now if you want to argue that Portugal was autonomous to exclude it from the Spanish Empire you should also argue for the exclusion of the other kingdoms which were equally autonomous with their own courts, laws and viceroys. That way you'd get a map which only includes Castille and its American empire.

So, in conclusion, yeah Portugal was autonomous but so were other kingdoms of the Spanish Monarchy. That's not enough to exclude it. --Victor12 21:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Also in regard to Taiwan: http://www.gio.gov.tw/taiwan-website/5-gp/history/tw04.html. If you want a better source I'll get one, shouldn't be hard to find. 68.179.176.9 21:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Interesting. I have not read about Spanish forts on Taiwan. Presumably because they only lasted sixteen years there. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's some more evidence that points out just how unique Portugal was (i.e. not unique at all): Legally, Spain's overseas empire was Castile's. Subjects of the Crown of Aragon were excluded, along with all other Europeans. The History of Spain, by Peter Pierson. 68.179.176.9 21:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Nice!!! That quote makes my exact point!!!! "Legally, Spain's overseas empire was Castile's." This author is defining the overseas empire of Spain as the territories that belonged to Castile. Portugal did not "belong" to Castile, any more than Aragon did - they just shared the same monarch. And if Portugal did not belong to Castile, its overseas empire did not either. THEREFORE the Portuguese and Spanish (Castillian) Empires were separate. Quad Erat Demonstrandum! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:17, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you're getting ahead of yourself. So now you're saying that the map should just have Castile? And by the way, this quote is taken from before Portugal was part of Spain, this is under Ferdinand and Isabella. The Hapsburgs weren't even in the equation yet. This quote makes two points in our favor: Spain was made up of the territories of the Hispanic monarchy, and Aragonese territories were in the same position as Portuguese territories. This remained that way until the Bourbon dynasty. And so that you can see how your argument is out of context, this is what comes before that quote: While Ferdinand focused on Italy, the American discoveries took on a life of their own and became the envy of Europe. 68.179.176.9 22:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Au contraire, you were looking for a definition of the Spanish Empire and now you've found it, at least for its overseas part. Those territories that legally belonged to Castile. Anyway, this is all a moot point and original research. I have now provided three atlases by Colin McEvedy that back up my point (whatever you say about the text, a picture is worth a thousand words, as they say), a map in the Atlas of World History, and a map from C. R. Boxer. So far, we've just had one map from you - and I haven't been able to verify yet that you are in fact representing it correctly (although it's a map of Europe and therefore does not count, you misrepresented the legend of the Pierson map). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:36, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not a definiton of the Spanish empire. As I said you took the quote from out of context. The only territories at that moment were Castile's. Deny it all you wish, it's very obvious. Secondly, I provided one map that includes all of the Portuguese territories in Asia, Africa, and south America and 4 that include Portugal as part of Spain in Europe. And it doesn't constitute as original research, I have published sources backing me (you like slapping that on everything you can't refute don't you?). I'll check the other two maps of Colin McEvedy, but the first one states it is plausible to include Portuguese territories on the map. 68.179.176.9 22:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

So if it was just "at that moment", at what point did the overseas empire become the legal property of all of the kingdoms that composed "Spain"? I presume you can point to some legislation or an event that marked this watershed? (No need to answer, that was a rhetorical question) Re McEvedy - doesn't matter what the text says, we are arguing about a MAP, what the conventions of drawing MAPS of the era in question is, MCEVEDY'S MAP IS EXPLICIT, and MCEVEDY IS A REPUTABLE SOURCE. You're not "explaining" that one away. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Easy, under the Bourbons Spain was a unified country, therefore from then on those territories belonged to all of Spain. I just gave you the quote. And as for the map, so you're saying the caption for the map is irrelevant? Also please stop using all caps, just use bold letters. 68.179.176.9 22:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Erm, the Iberian Union predated the Spanish Bourbons. So you are agreeing that until then, the Spanish overseas empire belonged to Castile. Ergo... bah, can't be bothered to repeat it, I said it above already. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Another quote that illustrates my point: Bourbon Spain was no longer a union of crowns but had become a unified kingdom. There you have it, a clear definition of Hapsburg Spain, a union of crowns. 68.179.176.9 22:38, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Let's not forget we are defining the Spanish Empire. In fact, why don't we look at what Encarta defines it as? [33]

"Spanish Empire, overseas territories in North and South America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania that were colonized and administered by Spain". Given that the Portuguese colonies were neither "colonized" nor "administered" by Spain - as per the quotes above - this hardly warrants inclusion of Portuguese colonies, does it? (Nor Portugal, either - but mind you, that's consistent with the legend of my proposed map, if you read carefully). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

"Spanish Empire, overseas territories in North and South America, Asia, Africa, and Oceania that were colonized and administered by Spain". Exactly, it says it's all the territories administered by Spain. And what was Spain? Hint: read the quote I just gave you. 68.179.176.9 22:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Philip II of Spain was Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Philip III of Spain was Philip III of Spain and Philip II of Portugal. Philip IV of Spain was Philip IV of Spain and Philip III of Portugal. How can Portugal be Spain when there were different crowns? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

He was king of Castile, king of Aragon, king of Portugal, etc. All this together was Spain at that time, as you can see from my source. Spain was the union of these crowns. 68.179.176.9 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward 68.179.176.9 22:57, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Historians don't refer to Philip II of Castile and Aragon, they refer to Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Again, what you are engaged in is original research and synthesis. To repeat, Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. To "verify" that your map is not original research, you have to show that "reputable sources" have published it first. So far, you have been able to provide one - just one map - in a book that does not specialise in this area. I, on the other hand, have provided five maps from three different authors. The onus is on you to back up your much stronger claim than the present map makes. You haven't, and you can't. I'm sorry but your complacence on Victor's talk page that you are winning this debate couldn't be more misplaced. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Which historians refer to Philip II as Philip I of Portugal? Portuguese historians? Anyway, that's a moot point as he had different titles on the different territories he ruled. Again, Portugal was not a special case of autonomy, other territories were equally autonomous under the Spanish Habsburgs. --Victor12 23:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you misunderstand. I'm not saying he was known as Philip I of Portugal rather than Philip II of Spain. I'm saying that historians recognise he was crowned King of Portugal in its own right. It was a union of the crowns, like James VI of Scotland and I of England, not a "takeover". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to leave now, I'll continue this discussion tomorrow afternoon if I can. 68.179.176.9 23:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)Edward

Does anyone else see discussion of Portuguese colonies at the Spanish Empire article at Encarta? [34] Cos I don't. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reasons why the anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire should not show Portuguese colonies

I thought I'd just summarise my position and evidence again. The key point is that my position is not based on original research or synthesis - it's what can be found out there in reputable sources.

• It is not in question that Portugal was ruled (for the large part, unwillingly) by "Spanish" monarchs for sixty years, and maps of Europe can be found showing Portugal within the borders of "Spain", "Spanish realms", "Habsburg realms" etc. The question is, what should a map of the Spanish Empire during this time show? Many maps of European empires can be found, the difficulty is finding one specifically dated for the years of the Iberian Union, to show that the drawing of one particular version for Wikipedia is not "original research".
• Colin McEvedy's three historical atlases on Europe [35], Africa [36] and the Pacific [37] clearly demarcate "Spanish" and "Portuguese" colonies in maps for the year 1600.
• The Penguin Atlas of World History [38] has a map of the period and labels the empires the "Spanish-Portuguese Colonial Empire".
• C. R. Boxer in The Dutch Seaborne Empire [39] - page 101 - drew a map entitled "Dutch conquests in the West Indies and Brazil" - where Bahia is marked as Portuguese, at the time the Dutch occupied it, in the year of 1624.
• The following maps by Shepherd The Age of discovery 1340-1600 [40]; The Spread of Colonization, 1600-1700 [41] span the periods of the Iberian Union yet make no suggestion of the "Spanish" empire consuming the "Portuguese".
• Contemporary maps of the time [[42] [43] label Brazil as "Portuguese", in Italian or Latin.
• Another question is what the reader would infer from a map of the "Spanish" empire containing Portuguese colonies. Such a map would be appropriate if the Spanish had taken over the Portuguese empire, and installed their own language, adminstrators, soldiers etc. However, various authors have noted the following characteristics of the empires during the time of the union:
  • "The overseas empires of both nations remained separate"
  • "Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire..."
  • "(Spain and) Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire"
  • "The two empires were kept administratively distinct"
  • "the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union"
  • "From the middle of the sixteenth century on, the Portuguese Empire and its general economic organization - with its full impact on Portugal's ultimate destiny - formed a sort of complement to the Spanish Empire"
• What do other encyclopaedias do for articles on "the Spanish Empire"? Encarta's [44] does not even discuss Portuguese colonies, let alone in the context of them being "Spanish", or list them as being so in its explanation of what colonies Spain had. Britannica's article on the history of Spain [45] confirms the quotes above: "Philip respected the laws and privileges of his new subjects and left them to administer their own colonial empire".
• As per WP policy at WP:V, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Admittedly one book has been put forward as having a map of the "Spanish Empire" containing Portuguese colonies. But, as per WP:REDFLAG, "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources", the fact is that only one map has been found showing Portuguese colonies as Spanish should raise flags that it is not academic consensus to draw such maps. Again, admittedly maps can be found showing Portugal within the borders of "Spain", "Spanish realms", "Habsburg realms" etc, but it would be synthesis WP:SYN and original research WP:OR for Wikipedians to then make the claim that from this, it entails that the Spanish Empire contained the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

One important issue is that this is an anachronistic map. Historical atlases and books don't use anachronistic maps. Thus, the whole concept of an anachronistic map is in itself WP:SYN and WP:OR, isn't it? --Victor12 00:23, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

No, not if the anachronistic territory is the union of all territories that can be found in maps drawn by reputable sources: ie not if it is not making any unverified claims. Saying that an anachronistic map is original research because published authors don't use them is like saying a map drawn in green is original research because all other published authors use red, pink or purple. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be WP:SYN? --Victor12 00:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you understand WP:SYN. How is merely collapsing temporal dimension into an anachronistic map "advancing a position"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Map

Red and I have agreed to include just Portugal itself in the map. However we are still discussing what shades to use. Meanwhile I'm simply uploading the simplest version of the map available. 68.179.176.9 13:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Edward

[edit] Two maps are better than one (perhaps)

The map showing the possessions of the kings during the Spanish Golden Age and the Iberian Union is buried deep in the article. The strictly Spanish Empire map in the infobox doesn't inform enough about the worldwide power of Spain at that time. So mostly as a demo, I went ahead and editted it to show both maps, but only one image shows. My hope is that it becomes possible to show both. I thought the change could only be justified by explaining it in the image caption, which made it more verbose than would be necessary if both images were visible. SamEV 21:05, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is an article on the Spanish Empire, not the power of the Habsburgs. Primacy should be given to a map of what historians deem "The Spanish Empire". I have provided a multitude of sources above (Talk:Spanish_Empire#Reasons_why_the_anachronistic_map_of_the_Spanish_Empire_should_not_show_Portuguese_colonies) that show the red/orange map is the best one to use. As for the infobox that crept back in thanks to the efforts of an anon IP, the Spanish Empire ain't a former country. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Spanish officials in Madrid came to exercise much power in Portugal and the Portuguese Empire.

SamEV 22:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has been covered ad nauseam above, about what historians refer to as "the Spanish Empire". Please read it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've read much of it, I'm not exactly a newby. But repeating my point: if you accept that despite the formal separateness of the two empires, much Spanish (not just Habsburg monarchical) power came be felt in Portugal and its Empire (or do you not accept that?), then you'd agree it should be shown by depicting the Portuguese empire in that map, set off in a different shade and clearly labelled as being for the most part independent of Spain, right? SamEV 22:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The period of the union was sixty years. The Spanish Empire lasted four hundred. It gives the Iberian Union far too much undue weight to have it as the map "at the top" of an article on the Spanish Empire. The map is in the article at the right place, the place which discusses the Union. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hence my proposed solution of showing both maps if possible. That period happens to be the one when Spain was at the height of her power. SamEV 00:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Both maps are shown though. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

They deserve to be equally prominent. One's buried.

Well, goodbye for now. SamEV 00:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I hardly would describe something that is not in an introduction as "buried". Introductions wouldn't be introductions otherwise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One map in the introduction, showing both empires, each in a different shade or color altogether, with a caption clearly identifying each and explaining that Portugal and its empire were only under partial Spanish dominance during 1580-1640, is far better. SamEV 11:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I proposed two maps b/c I thought it's a solution you might've liked; thus it seemed to be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamEV (talk • contribs) 11:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Me and Red have already discussed this to death. Unless you can find a significant amount of maps that show the Portuguese overseas territories as part of the empire it can't be changed since it is considered synthesis. We have already agreed however that Portugal itself should be included as it is in several maps mentioned in the discussion above. Please leave the article as it is unless you have the necessary means to verify it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It cannot be synthesis given that the partial subordination of Portugal and its empire to Spain, especially under the latter two Habsburg kings, is stated in reputable sources. That's why both should be shown and the preceding fact pointed out. Here's how: Take a map like this one ([46] — one which doesn't follow modern boundaries would be needed, however). It's just a map showing both empires, as separate empires. That's fine. The point is that they both appear on the same map. All it needs is a caption that reads, for example: "The Spanish empire in yellow, the Portuguese empire in purple. During the Iberian Union (1580-1640) the two remained legally separate, but Spanish officials often exercised authority in Portugal and its empire." Now what's wrong with that? SamEV 21:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Portugal was no more seperate from Castile than Aragon. This has already been cited in the discussion above. And that's all I'm saying, I'm out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

We agree about Portugal, then. What I have read also says that the Portuguese Empire as well came increasingly under Spanish officials. I just want this reflected in the map, in a way that does not suggest that the Portuguese Empire was taken over by Spain. SamEV 22:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

That's what the text of the article is for: details. The map as it stands represents the maps one can find of "the Spanish Empire". The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the text and the map should convey as much as possible. Those six decades are too important to leave out of the map, and sources exist that bear out everything I've said. I cannot be synthesis on our part to follow the procedure I've outlined. SamEV 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How is this map synthesis, Red Hat of Pat?

This is the kind of map I advocate for the introduction. The maps of the two empires can be verified reliably, both are clearly identifiable in this map, and the period and degree of Spanish control over the Portuguese is clearly stated and verifiable. So how is it synthesis? SamEV 17:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No, that's not synthesis. It's just not appropriate for the introduction to an article on the Spanish Empire. It's appropriate at the Iberian Union, and it's appropriate for the section of the Spanish Empire that deals with the union. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is customary when writing about an empire to show it at its height, which Spain was during that time, so how is it inappropriate to put this map in the intro? SamEV 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The empires were legally and administratively separate, as my multitude of sources above say. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

To repeat them (you can find the authors and texts above) -

• "The overseas empires of both nations remained separate"
• "Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire [the Portuguese]..."
• "(Spain and) Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire"
• "The two empires were kept administratively distinct"
• "the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union"

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

My proposed edit won't claim otherwise, Pat. It's a fact that Portugal and its empire remained mostly independent. The edit I propose would indicate that; the caption can be worded so as to leave no doubt. But remember, at the same that the Portuguese Empire (PE, for short) was mostly independent of Spanish authorities, it was also substantially under Spanish authorities. So it's like a glass half-empty, half-full argument (or mostly one and partly the other, in this case). Rather than argue that it must only be shown as being one way, Pat, why not show it being both? SamEV 03:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the caption is neither here nor there, I'm arguing that it is not appropriate for the introduction. Right at the very top, a handful of Spaniards may have been able to tell the Portuguese what to do, but Portugal was left with "substantial control" over its own administration and its own overseas empire, and Spaniards were "prohibited from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire". Spain didn't even defend Portuguese colonies from Dutch attacks. What mark did Spain leave on the Portuguese Empire? Spaniards weren't allowed to live there and Castillian was not enforced or even adopted as a language. If Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Macau, Guinea-Bisseau, Cape Verde, Goa and Malacca spoke Spanish this discussion would be different, but the fact is that they do not. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually Spain did defend Portuguese colonies, for instance:

Bahia, the chief town of Brazil, was captured in May 1624 but lost again the following year to a massive joint Spanish-Portuguese armada organized by Olivares. The fact that the Spanish Crown was put to enormous expense and inconvenience to recover Bahia was small comfort for most of the WIC's investors.

Jonathan Israel, Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585-1740, p. 160 --Victor12 15:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pat, that degree of power/control that you acknowledge that Spaniards exercised is precisely why the PE must be in the map. You're demanding that only lands where Spanish control was absolute should be included. Does this standard apply to other empires? I hope Victor et al can address that stance you take. (They know the subject better than I do). And lastly: are you going to argue that Egypt was not part of the Roman Empire just because Egypt is not Latin-speaking or Greek-speaking today? SamEV 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the article on "the Spanish Empire" at Encarta [47]. In the introduction, it says "At its greatest extent in the Americas, Spanish territory stretched from Alaska through the western United States, Mexico, and Central America to southern Chile and Patagonia, and from the state of Georgia south to the Caribbean islands, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina. In Africa, at various times Spain occupied territories in the Western Sahara (present-day Morocco), and along the coast of what is now Equatorial Guinea, including the offshore island of Fernando Póo (now Bioko). In Asia, Spain ruled the Philippine Islands, which the Spanish named after King Philip II in 1542 . In Oceania, Spain held the Mariana Islands and later the Caroline Islands. Gibraltar, a rocky promontory connected to the Spanish mainland by a sandy isthmus, is a British dependency still claimed by Spain." No mention of Portuguese colonies The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

So some sources don't mention it; others do. Portugal and its empire are variously described by others as having been "conquered", "united" to Spain, "annexed" by Spain, having "rebelled" against Spain in 1640, and so on. The Columbia Encyclopedia has this to say:

"Portugal, united with Spain by Philip II in 1580, rebelled and regained its independence in 1640."[48]

"Philip II of Spain, nephew of John III, validated his claims to the Portuguese throne (as Philip I) by force of arms, and the long "Spanish captivity" (1580-1640) began."

"Portugal was compelled to participate in Spain's wars against the Dutch and in the Thirty Years War. Finally in 1640 the Portuguese took advantage of the preoccupation of Philip IV with a rebellion in Catalonia to revolt and throw off the Spanish yoke."[49]

Here's a quote from Harvard's Roger Bigelow Merriman, a great historian of the Spanish Empire:

"From the cave of Covadonga to the annexation of Portugal and her dominions in 1580, which carried the Spanish Empire to its greatest territorial extent, the process of expansion is continuous."[50]

Again: "united", "rebelled", "compelled", "Spanish captivity"... To say the least, this is consistent not with an assertion of a co-equal relationship, but with at least a partial subordination of the PE to Spain. So as you can see, Pat, there are also sources that say the opposite of what you say. Wikipedia is about including all serious, important, verifiable viewpoints, and the viewpoint that the PE was (at least in part) under Spanish control fits the description. SamEV 19:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this umpteen times, and I'm not going to get into it again. The map is in the article, it is not as though I am suggesting it be stricken from the record. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The map is indeed in the article. That's not in dispute. The dispute is simple: you say it shouldn't be in the intro, I say it should. We seem at a standstill. What now? SamEV 20:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you open a request for comment. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comment on intro map

On whether the current map should show the Portuguese colonies.

I have looked on wikipedia for wiki standard in similar question but we do not have standard. In article Kingdom of Great Britain we do not see Hanover which is in union with this kingdom. On other side maps are showing union between Hungary and Croatia in only 1 color (article and map), but in article Austro-Hungary there is one color for Austria and another for Hungary (map) . In my thinking this situation is best. To conclude I think that it will be good to show Portuguese colonies but in different color of Spain colonies. ---Rjecina 3:15, 10 November 2007

All right. (I fixed a couple of your links) SamEV 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Which current map? If you mean a precise historical map depicting the period of the Iberian Union, yes, of course the Portuguese colonies should be represented alongside with the Spanish ones, albeit in different colours. However, if you mean the An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898), then they should not - this would amount to OR - what could prevent me or anyone else from making a map of the Portuguese Empire that included the Spanish colonies?!? You see it was, as it has been long repeated here, a personal union of the crows!! Even the present map is wrong! Portugal has always been since 1139 an independent country, even if for 60 years its kings where the same as the kings of the Spanish realms. Philip II of Spain (or Philip I of Portugal) was half Portuguese, spoke Portuguese fluently and even seriously considered moving his permanent royal seat to Lisbon! The first map in the article, as it stands, is quite POV, and the one you propose, adding the Portuguese colonies to the Spanish Empire (that even looks quite an imperialistic attitude...!), would be completely POV. The Ogre 15:11, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The current intro map was the result of a discussion and compromise between myself and two other contributors, in which much digging around was done, and is based on anything but OR, because it is based on maps in reputable sources. The Habsburgs are recognised as a Spanish dynasty, not Portuguese, despite having Portuguese blood (anyway, the royal houses of Europe were and are an incestuous lot - the current king of Spain is a French bourbon, and Queen Elizabeth can hardly be described as a full-blooded Englishwoman!) Portugal was indisputably a "Habsburg realm", and you can find lots of maps showing it as such. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. I am not saying that Portugal was not an Habsburg realm! Of course it was. But this article is not about the Habsburg Empire! It is about the Spanish Empire! Do you seem my point? The Ogre 13:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ogre, yes, I propose a map from the period 1580-1640 that shows the two empires in different colors. I showed the one in the article as a general example. Although if both are shown anachronously, this would be indicated, of course. SamEV 05:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I see that first map of this article is compromise. In reality this map [51] is very POV, but text in article is trying to change that. Reason for my thinking that this map is POV is showing of Portugal but not Portugal colonies like part of Spanish empire. On other side map in part of article God is Spanish is good. We all agree that this map is OK ?? If we all agree with that we can use this map like intro map ??

In the end if we look historical maps they are always showing Empire peak, and Spanish Empire peak has been during union with Portugal. ---Rjecina 9:48, 10 November 2007

Can you please explain why [52] is "very POV"? The legend says "An anachronous map of the overseas Spanish Empire (1492-1898) in red, and the Spanish Habsburg realms in Europe (1516-1714) in orange." What is "POV" about that? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 10:23, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First I do not like anachronous maps. For me this is only created so that users can write how his home states has been great. We are having enough fighting about that in ex Yugoslavia. I support maps with clearly stated years (example: Spain Empire in 1600). On other side on this map in question I do not see Holy Roman Empire. Why ? In summary of this "POV" map is writen:

"An anachronous map of territories in Europe whose crowns were at some stage united with that of Spain (orange) and the Spanish overseas empire"

Between 1519 and 1556 Spanish crown has been united with that of Holy Roman Empire. Only because of Charles V decision crowns have been separated. In this article it is clearly writen: "As a result of the marriage politics of the Reyes Católicos, their grandson Charles inherited the Castilian empire in America, the Aragonese Empire in the Mediterranean (including a large portion of modern Italy), as well as the crown of the Holy Roman Empire and of the Low Countries and Franche-Comté."

Like you can see I have not writen anything about Portugal colonies which are not on map. ---Rjecina 11:46, 11 November 2007

[edit] Portugal and portuguese empire were under the kingdom of Philip II

You could check the spanish version of "Spanish Empire" and you can check the map, as well i wanted to add that Philip II governated in all those territoris from Portugeuse kingdom, and under the Spanish king, so that it means that was part of Spanish kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.43.120 (talk) 09:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• Under the Spanish flag?Câmara (talk) 21:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This just sounds as pure spanish propaganda...The spanish version of "Spanish Empire" is biased.Portugal was not under the spanish flag,the portuguese kept there own flag during that time.Philip governed Portugal and it's empire totaly separate from Spain.Johnn Dorian (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese empire was part from spanish empire

Why the map shows that Portugal belonged to spanish kingdom, and not the portugeuse empire? it has no sense that Portugal is and its empire not

• Because Portugal and it´s empire were not part of the spanish empire.The portuguese empire was ruled only by portuguese and under the portuguese flag.Johnn Dorian (talk) 01:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• The map legend says that Portugal was a Spanish Habsburg realm, not a part of the Spanish Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

• Portugal was part of Spanish kingdom, you can check it in the spanish wikipedia page of Spanish empire "Imperio español" (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol)and you will check that Portugal empire was under spanish one under the kingdom of Philip II until 1640. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.146.228.51 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

"Although Spain and Portugal were united in a "personal union" between 1580 and 1640, a period now referred to as the Iberian union, the crowns of Portugal and Spain were kept separate: Philip was Philip II of Spain and Philip I of Portugal. Portugal remained a separate state[1] and the Portuguese empire was administered separately from the Spanish Empire"

Where does it say that Portugal or the portuguese empire were part of the spanish empire?Johnn Dorian (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You can check it here --> http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol

• The Habsburg Kings ruled Portugal as Kings of Portugal keeping all the autonomy of that nation.The Portuguese empire was ruled by the portuguese only.
• This is similar to the rule of the House of Hanover in Great Britain, in wich King George of Hanover became also King of Great Britain, ruling both countries at the same time.Yet, we dont see anyone claiming that the British empire was part of the Kingdom of Hanover, do we?XPTO (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

193.146.228.51, your argument seems to be "what I say is true because the Spanish Wikipedia page says it". Can you not see that this is equivalent to someone stating that the Spanish page is wrong because of what is written on the English one? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that you can't compare the union between Hannover and England to the unions that made up the Spanish empire. The fact is historians recognize a Spanish empire in this period, and if you were to discount unions of crowns it wouldn't exist at all until after the war of Spanish succession. Also I'd like it if Castile were seperated from Aragon in the map, as it is now it is very incorrect. Also northern Taiwan and the spice islands should be included.

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/spainmoluccas.html

http://www.colonialvoyage.com/remainspain.html ~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's the new map I propose: http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7371/spanishoverseasempireanhw5.png ~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.176.9 (talk) 17:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Largest Empire Claims

The opening line clearly states that the Spanish Empire 'was the largest in history'- which is not true. Would it not be prudent to change this piece of inaccurate information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.250.218 (talk) 16:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've attempted to rectify this error twice, however 82.186.100.114 seemed adamant that the Spanish Empire was the largest in history, despite the fact that it isn't and a reference was added to support this.--82.3.144.97 (talk) 16:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Well it says one of the largest, not the largest. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.153.32.131 (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portugal and not its empire

Why is Portugal in the map and not its empire. Was the empire independent during that time?. John. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You can read why above. Also read the legend of the map carefully. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes,but that is not true.Portugal and its empire were under the Spanish sovereign and therefore under Spanish rule, that is why Portugel rebelled in 1640 and Spain did not rebel. Portugal rebelled against Spain for some reason. We have quite a mistake here. Jandemorepeichen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you read the talk above, you will see that this was discussed in great detail. Please read it, and note the subject matter relates to what verifiable sources say about this, not contributors' own unsourced original research, which is what your argument is. If you can provide sources that explicitly back your claim that a map of the "Spanish Empire" should show Portuguese colonies, post them here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a mistake. Portugal and its Empire were under Spanish rule until 1640, when Portugal rebelled against Spain.You just have to see basic books about the history of Spain. But who cares, this is Wikipedia. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't pay attention to Hat, he is clearly biased. He refuses to acknowledge the Spanish presence in Taiwan and the Spice Islands, and the border between Castile and Aragon (which as I have verified with more than one citation had the same status of autonomy as Portugal). But it's just as you say, it's Wikipedia so don't make a big deal of it, no one really takes this site seriously.~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and this Hat happens to be a Portuguese. What a coincidence! Anyway, have no time right now. When I have time I will provide on-line sources to prove what any beginner in Spanish history knows, that Portugal and of course its colonies were part of the Spanish empire from 1580 to 1640, when the Portuguese successfully rebelled agaisnt Spain just after another rebellion had taken place in Catalonia with the same purpose. Having to prove these basic things makes one think what a serious academic place this is. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yawn. Wikipedia is founded on verifiability, not the personal views of its editors, no matter how convinced they are of their truth. Please read the sources I posted above. [53] Note that my arguments are based on verifiable sources, not ad hominem attacks like "he is biased" or "he is Portuguese" (I'm not, incidentally). Wikipedia is taken seriously, and if you want to be as contributors, you should start being more mature. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem's like the ones you threw at me during our previous discussion here?

I have already cited various works backing the Spanish presence in Taiwan and the Spice Islands. I'll show some again this instance, probably only to be ignored yet again.

The Dutch and Spaniards established more lasting settlements, the Dutch at An-p'ing in southwestern Taiwan in 1624, the Spaniards in 1626 at Chi-lung in the north. Until 1646, when the Dutch seized the Spanish settlements, northern Taiwan was under Spanish domination, the south under Dutch control.

Britannica Online Academic Edition

The Spanish, not to be outdone by the Dutch, sent a fleet north from Manila, drove out the Japanese pirates, and established forts and a mission at Keelung and at Tamsui. The Dutch attempted to evict them, and in 1642 their second expedition eliminated the Spanish interests.

George H. Kerr, Far Eastern Survey, Institute of Pacific Relations.

Thus, after the Dutch had seized the main Spice Islands in 1605, the Spanish, based on the Philippines, hit back and recaptured Tidore and part of Ternate.

Peter Brightwell, The English Historical Review, Oxford University Press

Also I happened on something else in that article, which I am not going to discuss now, but I will include it none-the-less:

In 1580, after seizing the opportunity provided by a disputed succession, Spain also acquired the Portuguese monarchy and the overseas empire which went with it. This gave Spain an Atlantic seaboard much more extensive than the one she had previously possessed; and the importance of this acquisition in strategic terms can best be expressed by noting that the provisional decision to send the Armada against England was taken soon after Philip got back from Portugal; and that much of the preparatory work was done at Lisbon, whence the Armada eventually sallied.

I have more sources with similar quotes in a document I have been saving, but as I said I wont get into that now.

The first detachment formed the nucleus of the strong expedition which Don Pedro de Acuña, Governor of the Philippines, directed from Manila against the Moluccas in the spring of 1606. There the Dutch fort on Tidore and the western half of Ternate were recaptured by the Spanish.

Engel Sluiter, The Pacific Historical Review, University of California Press.

And last but not least, this very informative site which goes into greater detail on the case of the Spice Islands: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/spainmoluccas.html

~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

What does Taiwan have to do with the Portuguese Empire? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not discussing that subject now, as I have pointed out in that post. I'm merely pointing out the territories which are missing (as I have verified earlier). I requested you to add them months ago. ~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Add them yourself! I'm not the owner of this article. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't really requesting you to add them, but rather I was making sure you agreed with it. ~Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 14:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it will take 4 days till I can upload the map. Unless of course you would be so kind as to upload it yourself. I provided a link to the image above long ago, so it is there if you choose to do so. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)Ed —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSTool (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have provided verifieble sources to include the Portuguese colonies in the Spanish empire, something I fiond incredible that some people want to ignore. So please, add those territories to the anachronous map. Otherwise it has a huge mistake. Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 11:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Portuguese empire must not be included in the Spanish Empire because it was never a part of it. It was only a personal union, the portuguese remained formally independent as stipulated at the Cortes of Tomar in 1581, in which King Philip promessed to rule the portuguese and their empire totally separate from the spanish. In fact, it would be the later attempts by king Philip IV to break the rules of the union stipulated at the Cortes of Tomar that will cause the revolution of 1640. Johnn Dorian (talk) 12:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you do realize the same applies to the Crown of Aragón (Cataluña, Aragón, Valencia) and its empire (Sicily, Baleares, Naples, etc.). Remember, Cataluña also rebelled in 1640 and almost succeeded. In Hapsburg times there is no Spanish Empire properly, rather a Spanish Hapsburgs Empire. --Victor12 (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. According to that argument we could just as well justify not including the Spanish empire of the Hapsburgs at all, since it applied to all of its territories. Going back and looking at the previous discussion we had months ago, we have 2 sources explicitly stating that Portugal and its colonies were a part of it. You guys however have that same argument over and over. In fact, among the sources I have said I accumulated, I have one that states Spanish garrisons were present in Brazil (and if I recall correctly, the author was Portuguese or Brazilian). Anyways, right now I am very busy with finals. But perhaps during June I might have some time to spare for this. But I can tell you right now I have 14 sources.

And by the way, as Johnn Dorian says, even if you were to use that argument, Philip II's successor's didn't adhere to his policies towards Portugal at all. So even then you could say that argument is void when applied to the end of this period.

And I quote from Encyclopedia Britannica Academic Edition: Portuguese resentment against Spanish rule was exacerbated by the failure of these kings to visit Portugal, the appointment of Spaniards to Portuguese offices, the loss of trade as a consequence of Spain's foreign wars, and the levying of taxation to sustain these wars.65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a discussion about a map, and so there is only one type of "evidence" which will really settle the issue: maps. Given that I have provided maps of three authors that do not show Portuguese colonies during this time as Spanish [54], the onus is now on you to provide some maps that do. If you can, then at best all we have demonstrated is that there is a divergence of opinion in academia. In that case, the present state of the article is the best compromise, because the first map shows colonies that are unarguably Spanish, and later on in the article there is a map of the colonies of the Iberian Union. Another option could be a non-anachronous map of the Spanish Empire from a specific year outside of the period 1580-1640. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If I find a source that explicitly states Portugal and its colonies were part of it, that is just as valid a source. Who are you to say what type of source is required?

Red I suggest a better compromise that I would agree with. Have two maps, one under the Bourbons and one under the Hapsburgs. The Hapsburg map should clearly show the entities that made up the Spanish Hapsburg empire as autonomous, with different colors, including most importantly the crowns of Castile, Aragon, and Portugal.

And if you don't agree with this, at least put up just the map of the empire at its height under the Bourbons (Charles III to be exact) until the issue is resolved (which will likely be never). Even the article itself states there is a great amount of debate as to what Hapsburg territories are to be included. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Who am I? Well, I'm a fellow editor that you are trying to convince am wrong. I would have thought that, if your view is widely held in academia, it should be pretty straightforward to find maps that back up your view, like I have done for mine. Most history books have maps, after all. If you can't find any, it leaves you in a precarious position, both in terms of convincing me, and in terms of convincing other, neutral parties, should you decide to open it up for further comment. Thus far, I do not see the need for a compromise if you can't produce any maps that show Portuguese colonies as Spanish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sir I have looked at many books and it is in fact very hard to find a map specifically dated to this period. Furthermore, your maps aren't as impressive as you make them sound. At least one of your maps (I believe the one from the Penguin Atlas of Modern History) in fact suggests that the map could show Portuguese colonies, and thus could be either way. Another of yours spans much more than the period of union (1600-1700), and then you have contemporary maps of Brazil labelled as Portuguese, which isn't exactly very useful because it just shows Brazil. What if those same cartographers mapped Mexico or Peru as Castillian? Then it wouldn't contradict my point at all. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the map in question clearly demarcates the Spanish and Portuguese Empires in the year 1600. The footnotes say that it could show otherwise, but the author chose not to do so. We can also look at the Penguin Atlas of World History, which says that the Empire was a joint one, the Spanish-Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, there you go. One of them states having Portugal on the map is also correct, and the other shows Portugal and Spain as one political entity. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion creeps up from time to time. The Portuguese and Spanish Empire were in a personal union, as was stated, the Portuguese Empire was not a part of the Spanish Empire, but, yes, due to the Iberian Union (and there is already a map for that) there were relations between them (and in fact there were also Portuguese an Spanish joint forces in many places). One can speak of a Spanish-Portuguese Empire for that period, but not of the Portuguese one being part of the Spanish one! This Spanish-centered POV creeps everywhere (look at Talk:Spanish Language and the discussion about some maps that try to make the USA, Canada, Morocco, Western Sahara, the Falklands!!, parts of Brazil, the Philippines, etc., somehow Spanish speaking nations!). If a map, against all credible sources and historical facts, pushes this highly biased POV, then I will be forced to make a map of the Portuguese Empire that includes the Spanish colonies between 1580-1640!!!!!!!! The Ogre (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The whole of the "Spanish Empire" during the Hapsburg era was a personal union, certainly all of its European possessions and even the colonies in the Americas were under the jurisdiction of the Crown of Castilla not of any "Spanish crown". Portugal is not a special case. --Victor12 (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is, because, first of all, Portugal was not under the crown of Castile, but was another kingdom of the Habsburgs (with the same authonomy as Castile, or Aragon, for that matter), and, secondly, because, no other of the Habsburgs' kingdoms (excepting Castile), possesed a Global Empire (and one that maintained itself after the dinastic breakup of 1640)!! The Ogre (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, caro amigo Victor12, you should read the Spanish article es:Imperio Hispano-Portugués, where it is clearly stated:

Felipe de España terminó siendo reconocido como rey de Portugal en las Cortes de Tomar de 1581. Mientras tanto, la idea de perder la independencia dio lugar a una revolución liderada por el Prior de Crato que llegó a proclamarse rey en 1580 y gobernó hasta 1583 en la isla Terceira de las Azores. El Prior de Crato terminaría derrotado debido principalmente al apoyo a Felipe de la burguesía y de la nobleza tradicional. Para conseguir tales apoyos, Felipe se comprometió a mantener y respetar los fueros, costumbres y privilegios de los portugueses. Lo mismo sucedería con los que ocuparan los cargos de la administración central y local, así como con los efectivos de las guarniciones y de las flotas de Guinea y de la India. En las cortes estuvieron presentes todos los procuradores de las villas y ciudades portuguesas, a excepción de las de los de las Azores, fieles al rival pretendiente al trono derrotado por Felipe II, el Prior de Crato. Este fue el principio de la unión personal que, sin grandes alteraciones, dominaría hasta cerca de 1620 (...). (...) Los reinados de Felipe I y Felipe II de Portugal fueron relativamente pacíficos principalmente porque hubo poca interferencia española en los asuntos de Portugal, que seguía bajo la administración de gobiernos portugueses. A partir de 1630, ya en el reinado de Felipe III de Portugal, la situación tendió a una mayor intervención española y a un descontento creciente. Las numerosas guerras en las que España se vio envuelta, por ejemplo contra las Provincias Unidas (Guerra de los Ochenta Años) y contra Inglaterra, habían costado vidas portuguesas y oportunidades comerciales. Dos revueltas portuguesas habidas en 1634 y 1637 no llegaron a tener proporciones peligrosas, pero en 1640 el poder militar español se vio reducido debido a la guerra con Francia y la sublevación de Cataluña. La gota que colmó el vaso fue la intención del Conde-Duque de Olivares en 1640 de usar tropas portuguesas contra los catalanes que se habían declarado súbditos del rey de Francia. El Cardenal Richelieu, mediante sus agentes en Lisboa, halló un líder en Juan II, Duque de Braganza, nieto de Catalina de Portugal. Aprovechándose de la falta de popularidad de la gobernadora Margarita de Saboya, Duquesa de Mantua, y de su secretario de estado Miguel de Vasconcelos, los líderes separatistas portugueses dirigieron una conspiración el 1 de diciembre de 1640. Vasconcelos, que sería defenestrado, fue prácticamente la única víctima. El 15 de diciembre de 1640 el Duque de Braganza fue aclamado rey como Juan IV, pero prudentemente se negó a ser coronado, consagrando la corona portuguesa a la Virgen María.

So dont give any type of distorted view about the real situation as it is described and analised and all credible academic sources! Vale?!? The Ogre (talk) 02:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see your point. You said that Portugal was not under the crown of Castile, but was another kingdom of the Habsburgs (with the same authonomy as Castile, or Aragon, for that matter). That was exactly my point. The whole Spanish Hapsburg monarchy was composed of several independent kingdoms under the same king. It was only under the Bourbons that the Empire was unified. So, Portugal was just another kingdom under the sovereignty of the Spanish Hapsburgs. Do we agree on that? --Victor12 (talk) 02:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Portugal was just another kingdom under the Portuguese Habsburgs! And if the Spanish colonies were under the Crown of Castile, the colonies of Portugal were under the Crown of... Portugal! The Empire, was a Spanish-Portuguese Empire, not a Spanish one that devoured the Portuguese one. The Ogre (talk) 02:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Referencing a stubby article with no sources whatsoever is not a very good way to argue for your point. All your Portuguese Hapsburg were born in Castile. As for Portuguese colonies, yes they were under the crown of Portugal in the same way as Spanish colonies in the Americas were under the crown of Castile and Spanish possessions in the Mediterranean Sea under the Crown of Aragon. That is precisely my point, this article deals with a branch of the Hapsburg dynasty centered in what is now Spain. They ruled over several kingdoms, including at one time Portugal. If there's an empire at that time and place it is a Hapsburg Empire, not a Spanish or a Portuguese one. --Victor12 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's call the article the Hapsburg Empire, then! Not the Spanish Empire if it is to include the Portuguese one. The Ogre (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure but we need to disambiguate between the Austrian branch of the Hapsburgs and the Iberian/Spanish one. Maybe Hispanic Hapsburg Empire or something like that. --Victor12 (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

They were not the "Portuguese" Hapsburgs. The Hapsburg branch was split into two: one based in Vienna and the other based in Madrid. Portugal was a territory of this second branch. What Victor says is true, the personal union argument isn't valid since Aragon was also in personal union (as well as technically all the other states such as Naples, Milan, Luxembourg etc.). I quote Encyclopaedia Britannica Academic Edition:

The union of the Crowns of Aragon and Castile therefore led to neither a political and institutional union nor to an economic integration of the Iberian Peninsula.

This notion of "Spain" in the modern sense did not occur till the Bourbons centralized the government after the War of Spanish Succession. The point me and Victor are making revolves around this. The fact that "Spain" and the "Spanish Empire" in this time were simply the Spanish Hapsburgs themselves and their personal empire. Just like at this time one would refer to the other Hapsburg branch as "Austria". 65.218.58.130 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC) - Ed

Yeah... Come on! Who are you kiding! Why don't you paint the world in the colours of the Spanish Empire! Have you read the Spanish text above? The Ogre (talk) 02:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Ogger,but your position is pure sophism. Because you are Portuguese you think the Portuguese case is special. Just pure sophism, as said. According to you Spain does not exist even now, taking into account the deep autonomy of oall Spanish regions that in some cases go beyond Federalism.Come on! Will you also say the sameabout Hollad, and Belgiumor most of Italy at the time? They were all also special cases, all are special cases, not just Portugal and its empire. Leave your Portuguese nationalism aside and be objective, for Gods`sake. anyway, thius si Wiki, with a lot of personal issues and the Anglo establishment with their continuous manipulation of history in relation to the Spànish.

By the way, why do not you erase also Portugal? Why do not you erase the entire Spanish empire. I am sure you can cherry pick links in the Net for any purpose. If you keep repeating the same lies, you know, as they say, they become true. How some people hate the real extent of the Spanish empire! But that is history folks, no matter what the century old envy agaisnt Spain tries again and again with their Anglo propagandists and numerous acolytes. And do not complain of my personal attackts. Anyone who knows the inside of European history and the century old Anglo, Portuguese, Dutch etc propaganda (due to the magnitude of the empire for cuenturies) knows too well how an article like this is pure propaganda again in the hands of said people. Newcomer.

Well, keep a cool head Newcomer. You may be right but that is no way ahead. I think the map must include the Portuguese colonies, stating that it was the result of a personal union 1580-1640 or explaining it somehow. But right now, to include only Portugal but not its dependent territories is an obvious contradiction that should be solved. But I leave you alone here. Do as you wish. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The present map with its distinction between the Habsburg Realms (which included Portugal) and the overseas Spanish Empire (which did not include Portuguese colonies) is perfectly consistent with maps that can be found in texts. Habsburg Realm != Colony. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 11:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Are the Hapsburg realms part of the empire? Or does the empire only include overseas possessions? --Victor12 (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm Portuguese and therefore I may be biased. Anyway, for any Wikipedia reader, (1) it should be clear from the map that the Spanish Habsburgs once ruled over Portugal (and its colonies) and (2) that the Portuguese empire was not built under the Spanish nor remained with Spain after the 1640 rebellion in mainland Portugal. I suggest that the Portuguese colonies and trading posts appear on this map with a different colour and an appropriate caption. Velho (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The caption could be: "An anachronous map of the overseas territories of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898) in red, and, in orange, the Spanish Habsburg realms in Europe (1516-1714), including Portuguese colonies." Velho (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I still say the best result is to have TWO maps: one under the Bourbons and another under the Hapsburgs. The Spanish Hapsburg map should clearly have all the crowns that made up their empire (Castile, Aragon, Portugal, Naples, etc) in different colors. Red, having Spanish Hapsburg realms in orange would be pointless because the entire map would be orange.

And I'm glad we have a Portuguese poster here who I can agree with. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, 65.218.58.130, it is not with ad hominem reasonings that you will make your point. Secondly, I'm not a new comer - maybe you are, since we don't know who you are 'cause you're not a registered user. Thirdly I'm not at all nationalistic and am, even, quite opposed to such positions. Fourthly, I have nothing against Spain! Quite the contrary, in fact. I'm even a member of Wiki Project Spain. And my aim in wikipedia is also to contribute to the improvement of articles about Iberia (that includes trying to improve articles about Spain), without them failing into typical anglo bias. Of course Spain exist, man! And to me, it seem you're the one with a nationalistic POV. But let's depart from personal comments. The question here is if Portugal or the Portuguese Empire should be present in an anachronistic map of the Spanish Empire. I believe, with reason, it should not. And you still haven't found or given any credile source saying so. Now, if you want to make non-anachronistic maps, such as the one already in the article representing the Spanish-Portuguese Empire during the Iberion Union under the Habsburgs, that is quite well (if, of course, the different territories are marked in different colours refering to different administrative and political structures)! But, in an anachronistic map that bundles toghether all the Spanish colonies of all times, including the Portuguese Empire in 1580-1640 is clearly a way to artificially enhance the supposed "might and glory" of the Spanish Empire! When was Brazil ever Spanish, or Angola, or Mozambique, or India, or Timor?!? Even during the Iberian Union they were refered to in Spain as "las colonias portuguesas"! If the objective is to make historical maps (giving the exact situation in precise dates), of course the Habsburg realms MUST include Portugal and its colonies. If the objective is to make a map that shows all the Spanish colonies in any given time, then including the colonies of a country that was in a personal union with the others Spanish crowns for just 60 years, a country that was not dependent on those other crows (in fact, problems in the Union only began after 1620, when the king, contrary to what had been established, began centralizing power in Madrid, appointing Castilian officials in the Portuguese administration, and conscripting Portuguese armies to fight in the defense of Castilian interests), and that maintained an overall authonomy in the administration of its empire, an empire, mind you, that if included in the Spanish one would almost double the areas ruled, then, I was saying, that amounts to trying a fictional expansion of the Spanish Empire. And yes, in this aspect, Portugal is different from Aragon, because it had a true global empire, not some small possessions in the Mediterranean. This in fact was the reason that permited Portugal to remain separated from the Union after 1640 - because of the backup of the Empire and the alliance with England, "paid" for with a huge chunck of India (Bombay). For all this reasons, I am also against the present map, that mixes up to completely different logics (the Spanish Empire and the Habsburg realms) - but the present make up was the result of huge discussions and a relative consensus was reached, and so I abided. But what you and others are trying to do has no fundament in reality as it is presented in respectable academic scholarship. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think we should use non-anachronous maps as proposed above. One for the Hapsburgs (1580 might be a good year) and one for the Bourbons (maybe 1782, after the recapture of Menorca). --Victor12 (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But don't we already have a non-anachronous map represeting the Habsburgs realms during the Iberion Union? And I do believe an anachronous map should also be present in the article, as it is done in all othe "empire" articles. But without the Portuguese possessions that can only be present in a non-anachronous map of the period 1580-1640. The Ogre (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ogre I didn't even respond to what you said. That was someone else. And you kind of flew off the handle yourself with the post you made in response to mine, so no complaints there. I will reply to your latest post when I have time (right now I must go to a class). 65.218.58.130 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am truly sorry 65.218.58.130!! I confused you with 62.175.249.250 (from Mérida, in Spain). That's the problem with IP's... My apologies! The Ogre (talk) 14:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Ogre is right in that there is already a map showing the realms and colonies during the Iberian Union! I didn't notice that before. I think that makes this whole discussion a bit pointless... Let me make a new suggestion: change the order the maps. Put the map with the Iberian Union at the beginning of the article and the anachronous map where the other one presently is. Velho (talk) 16:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, first of all Ogre, you said Spain existed in its modern sense at this time. That is absolutely false. I have already proved that Aragon was in the same situation as Portugal (numerous times). The map you guys point to is very POV since it gives Portugal special treatment, it recognizes its autonomy and has no respect for the autonomy of Aragon or any of the other kingdoms in the Spanish Hapsburg domain. The map would be correct if it outlined these appropriately in the legend, or if the entire map was labeled with one color, which I'm sure you wouldn't want (obviously). You say that Aragon must not be included because it didn't have an overseas empire? That isn't a valid point I am afraid.

One thing is clear gentlemen, we can't have an anachronistic map of both empires because of how different they were. We need two, as I have said, because Spain underwent a drastic political and administrative change under the Bourbons.

May I ask Ogre why you are against having one map labeled as the empire of the Spanish Hapsburgs which clearly distinguishes the autonomy of all the crowns which composed it? 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstood me or I did not exlain myself in the correct manner - I know Spain did not exist in the modern sense in that era (I was replying to the statemente that said I supposedly thought Spain doesn't even exist today!), and I have nothing against an historic non-anachronous map depicting the Habsburg realms worldwide that shows in different colours all the different authonomous crowns and their respective possessions (thus including Aragon). The Ogre (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, 65.218.58.130, fair as I'm trying to be, there is a difference between the two states that signed the Tordesillas treaty and any other entities without significant overseas domains, especially because these two empires existed before and continued existing after a 60-year union. If this isn't a difference for the purposes of this article, I don't know what could be! Why don't we start with the map showing the territories of the Iberian Union? Velho (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask what is fair about neglecting a historical fact, such as the autonomy of a territory? If Portugal is shown in a seperate color, there is no reason Aragon shouldn't. Tell me what is unreasonable about that? 65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise Suggestion

How about we add to the legend of the current map: "Not shown: Portuguese colonies during the period of the Iberian Union (1580-1640)." Reader can click on the Iberian Union link to see what that is all about. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem wrong, but I guess you won't find many supporters... Velho (talk) 22:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

May I ask that you first comment on my suggestion? The only drawback I see is having to create a new map. One under the Bourbons, which wouldn't be hard to create (just erase the Spanish Netherlands, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, the Duchy of Milan, etc. from one of the maps already uploaded). The Spanish Hapsburg map could be the current "Iberian Union" map, with Aragon in a seperate color, the other European crowns in other colors, northern Taiwan added under Castile, include the Spice Islands as governed by both Portugal and Castile (Ceuta as well, but it is too small to single out). I only have one problem with this approach, and that is the status of the smaller European states, namely Luxembourg and the Franche-Comté. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should the Spanish Empire be different to the other empire articles which all have anachronistic maps? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think the stark differences warrant two seperate maps? Each one can be anachronistic for their respective timeframes. Unless you can think of a way to incorporate both in the same map. For example the one now has Spain in orange, which is labeled as being a Hapsburg territory only (quite ridiculous). Not to mention the border with Aragon isn't included. On the other hand, maybe we could have Spain in red without distinguishing Aragon and Castile, but have a caption stating how Aragon and Castile were unified under the centralizing reforms of the Bourbons. Then have the remaining Spanish Hapsburg territories with a caption stating they were lost by 1714 or before then. 65.218.58.130 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)Ed65.218.58.130 (talk) 01:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm tired and have to go to sleep, so I won't today, but there is aways the option of an animated gif showing the historical evolution of the empire - all the complexities could be present (different colours, separations, unions, etc.)! See you all tomorrow. The Ogre (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think animations are not good for encyclopaedia articles. They are visually distracting when you are trying to read, and anyway they are verging on useless because you can't pause them. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 12:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Ogger on this one.An animation would be right. A Lusitan from Merida. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I think my solution is simpler, but if you guys want a go at an animation go ahead. It will be very hard though, a lot of territorial changes occurred. It would be a large file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSTool (talk • contribs) 22:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am very opposed to an animated map. It does not solve the problem of Portuguese colonies, and visually distracting for the reader. An anachronistic map is just the union of all the frames of an animated map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And what do you think of my solution: adding the colonies in orange, and providing a caption explaining how Castile and Aragon were unified under the centralizing reforms of the Bourbons in 1716. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PSTool (talk • contribs) 01:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry... who are you and what is your suggestion exactly? What are "the colonies"? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 13:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese colonies while under the Spanish Hapsburgs, so basicaly add the blue of the Iberian Union map into this map, but in orange. Then make Spain red, but provide a caption explaining the unification of Castile and Aragon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Completely against that, because that goes against all that's been said and all the sources provided by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick above. The Ogre (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding it in orange would be basically the same map we have now...it would still say it is a Spanish Hapsburg realm, except it would actually include the entire realm and not just part of it. Completely reasonable and the best solution at hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The European Habsburg realms are an entirely different kettle of fish to the overseas colonies. Conflating them and the colonies of Portugal would be a total misrepresentation of history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 17:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So you're saying Portugal was a seperate nation from its colonies? If Philip II was king of Portugal, did his sovereignty not extend to his kingdom's colonies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.218.58.130 (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you please create an account if you want to be taken seriously here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I already have an account. PSTool (talk) 18:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So please continue to use it then! Instead of contributing as an anonymous user and not even signing your posts. Regarding your proposed map, discussions based around if this then that or if that then this are irrelevant at Wikipedia. All that matters is that contributions are verifiable. If you can provide a map drawn the way you are proposing to draw this one, then you have the basis for a discussion. If you cannot, then this is original research on your part. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 18:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have provided maps with Portugal which is the same thing. There's a point to which your original research claims are completely unreasonable. PSTool (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact it isn't original research at all. All I need to verify, to add in Portuguese colonies in orange, is that the Crown of Portugal was indeed a Spanish Hapsburg realm. No where does it say the source must be a map. In fact, many of these anachronistic maps wouldn't be found in published sources. Does that mean that all these maps are original research? Again, you're being completely unreasonable.PSTool (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, the bottom line is this: if you are suggesting Portuguese colonies should be present on the headline map of the Spanish Empire then produce maps that show this. The present red/orange distinction is actually really Europe vs the overseas colonies. Note "in Europe" and "overseas" in the legend. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And on what basis do you include just the Spanish Hapsburg realms in Europe? By your own preference?PSTool (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, McEvedy's map, for example. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 03:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that all of Portugal falls into the category of Spanish Hapsburg realm. But fine, give me a couple of months and I'll bring you such maps.

When all is said and done, I believe the article should stay as it is, with the present maps (and of course one might add the caption The Red Hat proposed). The Ogre (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Caption Changed

I have added the statement to the legend that the colonies of Portugal are not shown on the map, without any claim that they were ever Spanish. The Portuguese Empire spanned 1415-1999, not 1415-1580 and 1640-1999. It did not cease to exist from 1580-1640. [55] [56] Histories of Brazil, Goa or Macau do not say that they were "Spanish" colonies for eighty years or that they changed hands from Portugal to Spain to Portugal in the way that Québec or Mauritius were French colonies and passed from French to British hands (and where, incidentally, they still speak the language of their ex-colonial masters). History is not going to be rewritten and readers confused. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 15:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it didn't cease to exist. But it was a Spanish Hapsburg realm, just like the Burgundian territories, the Duchy of Milan, and Aragon and Castile themselves. What you have on this map is hypocritical, and is is giving Portugal special treatment. Don't tell me I'm trying to rewrite history, what a nerve. Learn to respect other's arguments. I will look for those maps, and this time I will search Spanish sources as well. PSTool (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

And I would like to upload this map for now: http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/7371/spanishoverseasempireanhw5.png

Let me know if you have any issue with it.PSTool (talk) 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do have an issue shading half of Taiwan as Spanish, when they had two forts and didn't even maintain a presence for twenty years. It's like shading half of Kyushu green on the Dutch Empire map because they had a fort at Deshima or Indonesia pink on the British Empire map because Britain administered the Dutch East Indies for five years during the Napoleonic War. Based on your strict logic, it should be, but that is not what historians do. (Wait, that Dutch Empire map is ridiculous too - it has half the coastal region of Iran shaded as Dutch. Ridiculous. Time for more corrections....) Anyway, if you want to change the shading of Taiwan to two dots to represent the location of the two forts, I would not object. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ps I would also be happy with the removal of Portugal, and changing the legend to say ("Not shown: Portugal and its empire during the time of the Iberian Union"). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Except you couldn't do that because of the maps I provided showing Portugal in that manner. And as for Taiwan, the Dutch map is like that also. And it isn't all of northern Taiwan, just the tip. I don't see you complaining about the "Iberian Union" map showing all of western India as Portuguese, plus large swathes of African coastline. EDIT: Okay, it is all of northern Taiwan. But again, doesn't change what I said about those other maps. PSTool (talk) 16:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Iberian Union and Dutch maps are wrong. But two (or three) wrongs don't make a right, do they? Are you suggesting that in order to argue about this map, I have to first correct every single other map in Wikipedia? Regarding Portugal, you are the one declaring "hypocrisy" of the current map, not me, I was just proposing a compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 16:28, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

What is hypocritical is to include every Spanish Hapsburg realm but Portugal (well, the entirety of it). And if you are willing to change those maps, then I will agree to make the changes you suggest. I would also like to raise another issue: the Portuguese Empire map includes "claims' and "areas of influence", while those for the map of the Spanish Empire were removed (Pacific Northwest, parts of Brazil). In fact if you were to go by claims you could include a lot of territories. Frankly I think they shouldn't be included. PSTool (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I reduced it by a bit more than half: http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/1107/spanishoverseasempireanoi8.png PSTool (talk) 17:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your new map is OK, but are you sure the location of the Taiwan dot is accurate - what is your source for it? I agree about not drawing areas that were claimed but not settled or "areas of influence" - technically, one could have coloured half the world Spanish and half Portuguese after Tordesillas, and a lot of post-independence South America British - but you need to raise that on the Portuguese Empire page. Also I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to "bargain" with me? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 19:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just pointing out that other maps had glaring defects (while we were on the subject), which were much more important than something so minor as northern Taiwan being in red. I'm not trying to bargain anything. As for the sources, I listed a ton a few days ago. They even have a museum in Taiwan dedicated to one of them, and a cape in the vicinity has a Spanish name as a legacy to their presence in the area.PSTool (talk) 03:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The flag (again)

I changed the caption of the flag [57] for the information on Talk:Spanish_Empire#The_Flag. The actual flag of the empire would probably be this banner on 1580-1700 and this other banner on 1700-1759. I'm not sure about uploading them and using them under a {{Non-free use rationale}}. Someone should provide a free-use version for them, or find the ones already used on wikipedia --Enric Naval (talk) 10:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Dutch Empire map

Various alterations to the Dutch Empire map have been made, with no sources provided for these alterations. Would appreciate comment on the Talk:Dutch Empire page. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As the one above me has said, we are having a dispute. He claims this site is an unreliable reference despite the fact that they list where they got every single piece of information from. http://www.colonialvoyage.com/ (Red4tribe (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC))

That personal site is not a credible academic source, and you map just seems like another attempt to enhance the areas under control of a specific empire. The Ogre (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Map again

The map now makes reference to the Iberian Union, instead of inlcluding directly those territories. Read the Iberian Union article. If that is not Portuguese-centric I do not know a thing. I think this part of the article is being ruined by some users with a lot of Portuguse propaganda in their minds. No wonder that with a few more contributions Spain is going to end up having been a colony of Portugal. Risible. All risible. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)