Jump to content

Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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 ([1] — 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)

How is this map synthesis, Red Hat of Pat?

Red and purple: Spanish empire; blue and light blue: Portuguese Empire, which came under partial Spanish control during 1580-1640

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 [2]. 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."[3]
"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."[4]
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."[5]
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)

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 [6] 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 [7] 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

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)

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)

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

"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)

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)

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. [8] 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 [9], 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)

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)

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. [10] [11] 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)

The flag (again)

I changed the caption of the flag [12] 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)

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)

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)

Please let's get it started. I will do an example with Portugal, Castille and Aragon. Ok 3 kingdoms separated. Now call Castille+Aragon Spain. Doesn't we have Portugal AND Spain? So, obvioulsy, we have a Portuguese Empire (Portugal) and a Spanish Empire (Castille+Aragon). I don't know exactly when the definition of Spain being Castille+Aragon was "established" (probably around Charles I of Spain), as before that Spain meant the same as Iberia, but even if in the times of the Iberian Union they used "Spanish Empire" in the same meaning as we use "Iberian Empire" (I think they did) we can't use now Spanish Empire for that "Iberian Empire" because it now have a different meaning, for the Spanish Empire now we are reffering to the Empire of "modern Spain". Anyway an Iberian Empire did not exist because the Portuguese and Castillian (only Castille and its colonies) Empire were administrated in an independent way.Câmara (talk) 12:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Map one more time

The map is not correct:

1) In case of showing only the strictly CASTILLE´s possesions, it´s recommended to show the real viceroyalty of Peru, wich was over the most part of the actual Brazil during the Spanish Empire

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virreinato_del_Peru ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viceroyalty_of_Peru ;

2) It´s recommended to show in other color the Iberian Union ( http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_espa%C3%B1ol , http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%A9rio_espanhol ), wich had a very important historical integration: military, economic and politic were included; resulting in a homogeneous nation and today still being a present hope-idea. Here are some wiki references of the past union:

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberismo , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iberism , http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_espa%C3%B1ol , http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imp%C3%A9rio_Portugu%C3%AAs , http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperio_Hispano-Portugu%C3%A9s,

and maybe the most important (history of Felipe I of Portugal and second (II) of Spain):

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felipe_II_de_Espa%C3%B1a#Rey_de_Portugal

"El gobierno mediante Consejos instaurado por su padre seguía siendo la columna vertebral de su manera de dirigir el estado. El más importante era el Consejo de Estado del cual el rey era el presidente. El rey se comunicaba con sus Consejos principalmente mediante la consulta, un documento con la opinión del Consejo sobre un tema solicitado por el rey. Asimismo existían seis Consejos regionales: el de Castilla, de Aragón, de Portugal, de Indias, de Italia y de Países Bajos y ejercían labores legislativas, judiciales y ejecutivas" 

 -> GOOGLE TRANSLATION (sorry, no time)

"The government through councils established by his father remained the backbone of his way to lead the state. The most important was the State Council which the king was the president. The king was communicated with their Councils mainly through consultation, a document with the Council's view on a topic requested by the king. Also there were six regional councils: that of Castile, Aragon, Portugal, India, Italy and Netherlands and efforts exerted legislative, judicial and executive."

(POLITIC AND TERRITORIAL INTEGRATION)

and

"Felipe II también gustaba de contar con la opinión de un grupo selecto de consejeros, formado por el catalán Luis de Requesens, el castellano duque de Alba, el vasco Juan de Idiáquez, el cardenal borgoñés Antonio Perrenot de Granvela y los portugueses Ruy Gómez de Silva y Cristóbal de Moura repartidos por diferentes oficinas o siendo miembros del Consejo de Estado." 

 -> GOOGLE TRANSLATION (sorry, no time)

"Philip II also liked to have the opinion of a select group of advisers, consisting of the Catalan Luis de Requesens, the Castilian Duke of Alba, basque Juan de Idiaquez, Cardinal borgoñés Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle and the Portuguese Ruy Gomez de Silva and Cristobal de Moura spread by different offices or being members of the State Council. "

(POLITIC AND SOCIAL INTEGRATION)

and

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_la_Isla_Terceira ; http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sitio_de_Ostende ;

"La flota española estaba mandada por el gran marino militar Álvaro de Bazán, Marqués de Santa Cruz y Capitán General de las Galeras de España. Mandaba dos galeones del rey, 10 naos guipuzcoanas, ocho portuguesas y castellanas, 10 urcas flamencas y una levantisca, así como cinco pataches. Pero dos de las urcas desaparecieron en la noche del 24 de julio, tres naves se demoraron en Lisboa, la levantisca llegó tarde y uno de los pataches había sido apresado, por lo que, en el momento del combate, sólo tenía 25 bajeles de guerra.

El mando de la flota francesa lo tenía Felipe Strozzi, hijo de Pedro Strozzi, Mariscal de Francia, y le secundaba Charles de Brisac, Conde de Brisac, también hijo de Mariscal de Francia. Se encontraba en ella D. Francisco de Portugal, conde de Vinioso. Llevaban 60 navíos con 6.000 a 7.000 infantes y arbolaban la bandera blanca con la flor de lis dorada.

..En marzo de 1582 se refuerza la isla de San Miguel con cuatro naos guipuzcoanas que lleva Rui Díaz de Mendoza, y quedan a cargo del almirante portugués Pedro Peijoto de Silva, que estaba allí con dos galeones y tres carabelas.

En mayo nueve naos francesas atacan San Miguel. El ataque es rechazado por las naos guipuzcoanas, que tuvieron 20 muertos..

..Por parte de los atacantes, los tercios del Imperio español estaban compuestos por soldados reclutados en todos los dominios de los Habsburgo, españoles y portugueses de la Unión Ibérica, italianos, alemanes, valones, suizos, borgoñones, flamencos leales a España.." 

 -> GOOGLE TRANSLATION (sorry, no time)

"The Spanish fleet was commissioned by the large marine military Alvaro de Bazan, Marquis of Santa Cruz and Captain-General of the Galeras Spain. Mandar two galleons of the king, 10 naos guipuzcoanas, eight Portuguese and Spanish, 10 urcas Flemish and a levantisca, as well as five Patache. But two of the urcas disappeared on the night of July 24, three ships were delayed in Lisbon, levantisca arrived late and one of the Patache had been arrested, so that at the time of combat, only had 25 bajel war.

The command of the French fleet was what Philip Strozzi, son of Peter Strozzi, Marshal of France, and he supported Charles de Brisac, Conde de Brisac, also son of Marshal of France. He was in it D. Francisco de Portugal, Count of Vinioso. Llevaban 60 ships with 6,000 to 7,000 infants and trees the white flag with golden fleur-de-lis.

.. In March 1582 reinforces the island of San Miguel with four naos guipuzcoanas leading Rui Diaz de Mendoza, and left by the Portuguese admiral Peijoto Pedro de Silva, who was there with two galleons and three caravels.

In May naos nine French attack San Miguel. The attack was repulsed by the naos guipuzcoanas, who had 20 deaths ..

.. On the part of the attackers, the Spanish-thirds of the Empire were made up of soldiers recruited in all domains of the Habsburgs, Spanish and Portuguese Union of Ibero, Italians, Germans, Walloons, Swiss, Burgundians, flamingos loyal to Spain .. "

(MILITARY INTEGRATION) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.137.116 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

(1) The Iberian Union map is present on the page already. (2) The Iberian Union is mentioned in the legend of the main map. This is a perfectly satisfactory compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn´t answered to the CASTILLE posesions of BRAZIL (1). Read it please. The map is wrong without it.
How did you read all my article in less than 19 minutes? Did you read the references? Are all very important for deciding the history of Spain in the first enciclopaedia on the Internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.44.137.116 (talk) 01:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the current state is a compromise, and we have gone over this ad infinitum, so I personally have nothing more to say to you on that matter. As for Peru, feel free to update the map and provide a source for your change showing which map (not from Wikipedia) you got it from. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:07, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting the style. For talking about Spanish empire, I would recomend people to read more and write less "propaganda negra británica".
About the viceroyalty of Perú, here are a few visual references from outside of the wikipedia, however in text you can found much out there (consult and serach for the "tratado de Tordesillas" and the "tratado de Madrid (1750)".
http://faculty.smu.edu/bakewell/BAKEWELL/images/viceroyalty-peru.jpg
http://www.educared.edu.pe/estudiantes/historia2/galeria/modulo3/f04g.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiliojcp (talk • contribs) 16:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The new map that was just put up is really bad quality, and that's why I reverted it. I am not disputing it's accuracy, but the quality is definitely not good. Kman543210 (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The date of the anachronous map and the Spanish map possesions

It says from to 1898, on the anglo-spanish war and lose of Cuba, Philippines, Guam, Puerto Rico and etc. The date isn´t correct because the Western Sahara was leaved from Spain in 1976 and Ecuatorial Guinea on 1968. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_Ecuatorial http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1hara_Occidental

I proceed to change it to the last date (1976). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiliojcp (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Emiliojcp - you appear to be repeatedly reverting this (and related) articles from an anonymous IP address as well as this user name. This is sockpuppetry and will get you blocked, so please stop now. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to the accuracy of the new map that someone tries to put up, but the quality is really bad. The colors are off, and it seems like the resolution is worse than any of the other maps. Also, since when did the Spanish Empire go through 1976? I wasn't aware that it was called the Spanish Empire just because it was in Western Sahara. Kman543210 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I´m reverting this with my username if I have logged. I´m not living to see if the upper corner shows "logged". Sorry if I wrong you with the anonymous, I was the one who changed it from 80.***.
You haven´t reply to the argue, so you have to consider to put the correct information please. Should remember that this it´s a public enciclopaedia, and problems must be solved with words and reason, not with indifference.
Give it a bit more time please. I have various maps in my book collection and I'd like to see whether they concur with the map that you have provided above, because it seems to me to be based on vacuous claims to sovereignty - if noone ever settled there, was it really part of the empire? Didn't Spain claim the whole of the New World at the beginning, following Tordesillas? Noone would say Canada was part of the empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I must apologise if I have being a bit demanding.
Yes, the Brazil interiors don´t were populated by the Spaniards before the 1600´s. First settlements became with the first "misiones jesuitas" (jesuit misions? christian voluntariado?, dont know how to translate), and in this line we can say that the most of the territory was only claimed and lighty colonisated. But this is not a reason to exclude it from the map: Siberia is currently very poorly populated, extremely poorly; but here all we can affirm that Siberia its part of Rusia (or not?!).
Taking another examples we can go to your country (US) and think about if the Wild West didn´t form part of the US when wasn´t settled until the land rush? (forgive me if I commit errors, I know a little about American history). Even we can remember the Tumurids, Mongolians or Bereberes (nómadas ~ people from the desert ) were it´s knew that they have a big empire where no constants settlements existed.
Even so, nobody puts "white holes" in the Mongolian empire´s map.
Hope to be helpful —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiliojcp (talk • contribs) 02:42, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I forgoted, in Tordesillas, Spain and Portugal (before the Iberian Union) decided to repart the world that could to be conquered, before knowing that was a New Continent ( see Waldsemüller ? and Vespucio). Spain claimed only La Española (Hispaniola, Colón arrivals on 1492) before Tordesillas; accepted on 1494 and rathificated via "Bula Papal" (Pope agree?) on 1506. The treaty established that the west atlantic ocean was part of Spain (starting aboute 370miles from Cabo Verde; resulting the meridian 46º 37’ who cuts Brazil from the north to the south), and the south atlantic ocean of Portugal. The Spanish reason for promoving the treaty what that Portugal ignore that the India and Cipango (Japan) could be reached throught the west.
About Canada: Spaniards claimed from the Patagonia to Alaska and Vancouver, Canada. Here you have the reference: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver ) See also José María Narváez . Emiliojcp (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
To Kman543210 if we can´t name Spanish Empire, when Spain last only the Sáhara and Guinea then we are improperly saying that the British Empire is today existing. Even more examples are the Portuguese, who was accepted that they were Empire until the transfer of East Timor and Macau.
About the map I don´t see were you saw bad quality, please I would like you to be more specifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emiliojcp (talk • contribs) 02:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I do agree with you on the 1976 date though Emiliojcp. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that people say that the British Empire still exists today. But regarding the maps, see the 2 side by side below. The color on the one on the left looks blotchy, and there is a faint color line that goes down through Brazil. It just looks blurry and a lower resolution than the one on the right. Kman543210 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC) thumb|350px|leftthumb|350px|right

The resolution is the same, when clicking on the image, you can check it. Maybe you can apreciate something diferent because its a .jpg format, not a .bng . White line on Brazil its an error. Otherwise that image its a exaclty copy of the previous image.Emiliojcp (talk) 03:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Having looked at

  • Spain and Portugal in the New World (1492-1700), Lyle McAlister (p.264) (shows a map similar to the original one)
  • Empire, Henry Kamen (p.xvi) (has the borders of the Viceroylty of Peru extending out further than the original one, into present day Brazil, but not all the way to the Tordesillas line, and has a line drawn indicating Tordesillas falls)
  • The History of Latin America, Marshall Eakin p.60 (has a map similar to the original one)
  • The Penguin Atlas of Modern History, Colin McEvedy p.17 (has a map similar to the original one)

Therefore I disagree with the proposed new map, because:

  • the above four maps do not agree with it
  • it represents nominal claims handed out by Tordesillas. Spain never occupied or settled right up to that line, and so it was just a claim.

As far as I'm concerned, the present map is absolutely fine. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick! Those areas of Brazil were never truly occupied by Spain. If one was to follow those types of claim (issuing from the Tordesillas Treaty), then all of North America would be Spanish, and all of Africa would be Portuguese. The present map is more than absolutely fine - it was the result of huge amounts of carefull discussion and is very well sourced. Let it be as it is. The Ogre (talk) 11:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Emilio. He haspresented sources, the ohters just opinions. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

you guys are all wrong. brazilian states of santa catarina and rio grande do sul were effectivelly occupied by spain. those should be included in the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.216.0.158 (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Aragón was not and independent crown. The definition of Spain its : Castille + Aragon

The map shows that the Crown of Aragon its delimited on white from Castille. That division never happened, at least from 1469. Before that date, didnt exist Spain. Spain was created with the fusion of Castille and Aragon. I recomend to change the map for the last. Undo please to last contrib Emiliojcp (talk) 03:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)emiliojcp

I support your changes. You have demonstrated more knowledge on Spanish history than some other users here who seem to stick to some kind of weird agendas without respecting Wiki rules and the sources that you are provinding. Go ahead and change the maps.Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, according to some simplistic and child-like comments here, I guess we have the right to erase Alaska as part of the US, right?. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.175.249.250 (talk) 09:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. If you actually read a few paragraphs up, you will see I presented four sources, none of which agree with the map posted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

References - bit dodgy, perhaps.

I had a look at reference (1) at the end of the article. Looks like an amateur website apparently claiming to be authored by a Finnish person with an MA in Politics.
Hmm.
This is hardly mainstream, or peer-reviewed material.
Couldn't find a reference to Parker anywhere on it either. (With apparently 32 books to his name, Parker is not exactly a minor historian).
I mean, if a reference of this quality is OK, I could write my own piece under a pseudonym, big it up on a few websites, and then quote from it to my heart's content.
That would be freedom of speech, alright, but it would also be WP:OR, just jazzed up a bit to disguise it.
What do you all think?
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 04:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I removed it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Inaccuracies in the Map

1. It is unclear and overall inaccurate to put one part of the Spanish empire in red, and another in orange. The distinction between the "Habsburg realms" and the overseas territories is not relevant to an article on the "Spanish Empire". All other Wikipedia articles on "Empires" use the same colors for all territories, no matter what administrative differences there were.

2. The Line separating the former kingdom of Aragon (including Cataluña, Valencia and the Balearic Islands) from the rest of Spain is equally irrelevant.

3. The map should also include North Borneo or Sabah which was under Spanish control in the 19th century. (The Philippines still claims this territory, which was part of the former Spanish East Indies). See Sabah Dispute

JCRB (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

1. There was a long discussion about this, and this was the consensus. The discussion, and references, can be found further up the talk page.
2. I agree that there is little point in this, but it was part of the consensus.
3. I think you have your facts muddled. Sabah was historically part of the Sultanate of Sulu. In 1848, the Sultan signed a treaty of friendship with James Brooke. In retaliation, Spain attacked Sulu that year, and then returned in 1851, forcing the Sultan to sign a treaty that nominally made his dominions part of the Spanish colony of the Philippines. However, this treaaty was "largely ignored". In 1871 Spain again attacked Sulu, but it was not fully subjugated until 1875. In 1898, the Philippines passed to the United States, and in 1915, the then-Sultan relinquished all claims to Sulu at which time it formally became part of the Philippines. Based on the fact that Sabah was part of the Sultunate of Sulu and Sulu became part of the Philippines, the Philippines claimed it in 1963, but at no time was Sabah part of the Spanish East Indies. Reference: Southeast Asia: A Historical Encyclopedia, from Angkor Wat to East Timor, Keat Gin Ooi, Published by ABC-CLIO, 2004, ISBN 1576077705, 9781576077702

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

New arguments about the map, with sources

I have incorporated a serie of arguments in commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png supported with several sources, including international treaties, but they are in Spanish language due to its great length and my little skill and knowledge of English language. It is a material that could be taken into estimate, but I dare not translate if I use inadequate terms. However, I summarize the main points here:

  • Spain, as a modern state did not exist. The Habsburg monarchy was a ensemble of kingdoms and territories linked by the monarch, therefore there was no Spanish-Portuguese empire between 1580-1640: there is not an administration for Spain and another for Portugal on the other side.
  • Portugal was not added nor incorporated to Castile (nor Spanish because it was not a state) but it was not an independent state. Portugal retained their own institutions, but the other territories of the monarchy retained also their own institutions, as Aragon, Flanders, Burgundy, Milan ... and even Castile. All these territories were dependent of the Court in Madrid, where they had their territorial councils. In the wiki Portuguese, the proper title pt:Restauração da Independência, indicates that before 1640, Portugal was not an independent territory.
  • Castile and Portugal did not establish a personal union, but it was a royal union, which is different, and the legal basis of that union were the Cortes of Tomar.
  • The Catholic Habsburg monarchy was Spanish, but not a Spanish state nor nation. Spain was a geographical name, but it was also an ideology that began with the Catholic Monarchs' political actions, so that, the European chancelleries, including Portuguese one, acknowledged Spain in their diplomacy and treaties, as an international power or partner, but not as a ensemble of unrelated realms. The contemporaries of the seventeenth century included Portugal in a more flexible notion of Spain that does not adapt to the rigid notion of Spain as a modern state.

Trasamundo (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello Trasamundo! I still haven't read what you wrote in the Commons, but I will go there as soon as I can. Just let me say this two things. First, finally someone with real sources and not just opinions! Secondly, all you say here seem to back up the choice NOT to include the Portuguese Empire in the Spanish anachronous one, exactly because one can not use the modern concept of Spain to designate all of the territoires that were under the control of the Habsburgs, but only, if an anachronous map is to exist (and it would be dificult not to have them since they seem to be the standard in wiki), of those realsm that were part in the formation of the modern Spanish State, as Castile and Aragon, but not Portugal. I'll get back to you in the Commons with more detail. Gracias amigo! Vale. The Ogre (talk) 10:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The Oger will go to all lengths and interpret all just the way he wants to avoid Portugal and its empire in the same map as the Spanish empire. Sad. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.158.241 (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all: greetings Ogre! We haven't talked in many months. Second of all, and briefly, about your position, that the PE cannot be included because the concept of "Spain" did not exist ca. 1600: If that's so, then there's no reason for a "Spanish Empire", or "British Empire", or "History of Germany", or any such article that "anachronistically" covers periods of history that fall before or after the specifically named polity. For example, we'd require an "English Empire" article for the period before 1707, and then, for the period after 1801 we'd need a "United Kingdom Empire" article. SamEV (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

We should avoid these "arguments from logic" in attempting to resolve the map dispute. It is original research. The only way to solve the problem is by posting references. As we have been through this a million times already, it can be shown - and indeed it was shown - that references can be found which support either side. Therefore, in my opinion, the map should show the lowest common denominator, which is just the Spanish colonies. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"and indeed it was shown - that references can be found which support either side. Therefore, in my opinion, the map should show the lowest common denominator, which is just the Spanish colonies."
Doesn't work that way, Pat. WP:NPOV requires that all important POVs be represented. Nor is there an issue of space preventing the display of the PE in the lead map, as there would in the case of a dispute about text. SamEV (talk) 01:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. Although noone would deny that Philip ruled over Brazil, or that it was a Habsburg possession, it is certainly not the mainstream view that Brazil, or Macau or Mozambique or Angola were Spanish, which is what the map you want would suggest to the reader. The "P.E. not shown" statement and the presence of the Iberian Union map are a perfectly acceptable compromise here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be the mainstream view, only a "significant" view (WP:NPOV), which you admit it is: some experts include the PE in the Spanish Empire. And allow me to remind you that I'd have the Portuguese possessions clearly labelled as such in the map.SamEV (talk) 01:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If they are indeed Portuguese possessions, as you say, then why would they be on a map of the Spanish Empire? (NB this is not an article on the Habsburg Empire). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
An example of nesting, somewhat like in feudalism. So Brazil would have been immediately held by Portugal, but Portugal, in turn, was under substantial Spanish control. Reliable sources say so; that's the only reason I insist on it. SamEV (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately to the Spanish. Which is the reason I insist on it. Also, I ask you this - what happened to the Portuguese colonies when the union dissolved in 1640? If Brazil etc was "Spanish", why did it revert to Portuguese rule without even a fight there? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Pat, I do wonder whether you've ever invested even a minute reading about the NPOV policy. You seem stuck on the idea that only one view must be presented. Since my links to the policy page don't seem to have succeeded in getting you to read it, let me quote from it: "Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors."(WP:NPOV. Boldface in the original) SamEV (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
It is impossible to represent both points of view on the same map, isn't it? Something can't be coloured in and not coloured in at the same time. The current map and legend are quite clearly the most neutral point of view possible. The fact that the empires were united is already mentioned in the map legend (part of the compromise). And there is already a map showing both Portuguese and Spanish colonies during the period of the Iberian Union in the article [13]. So don't give me this "NPOV" nonsense please: the article already effectively contains the map you want, further down, in the appropriate place. Feel free to add to the text there if you believe it's not NPOV. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
ps you may also wish to read, on the same NPOV page, WP:UNDUE. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 20:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) "It is impossible to represent both points of view on the same map, isn't it? Something can't be coloured in and not coloured in at the same time." No, Pat. What I and many others have proposed and continue to propose is for the two empires to be colored differently and for the caption to mention the substantial Spanish control exercised in Portugal from 1580 to 1640. SamEV (talk) 21:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

No, no, it's a significant view, from important scholars, Pat; so WP:UNDUE doesn't apply. Nice try, though. SamEV (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, the map you propose already exists in the article further down. I've already posted plenty of reputable sources above [14] that show why this map is inappropriate for the "headline" one. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, I know it's buried further down in the article. That's not good enough.
Anyway, Ogre's working on an animated, lead map which will accomodate both major views. SamEV (talk) 01:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It's good enough. The article must be taken as a whole when deciding matters like this. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Besides - it's not even true what you say. It's far from "buried". The Iberian Union is linked to and the Portuguese colonies are linked to in the legend of the map at the top. Basically what this comes down to is that you can't accept the compromise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Ogre's going for a map to end all maps. I'm pulling for him.
And I remind you I was on Wikibreak when that 'compromise' you speak of was reached, yet you act as though I'm absolutely bound to it and obligated to uphold it. And if it was so great, how come, not just I, but users Trasamundo, Durero, and (of course) EuroHistoryTeacher (and and IP or two, from what I've seen) also find it unacceptable? SamEV (talk) 04:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I note you have no response to my point about it not being buried, nor to the multitude of references I provided. Brazil was never a Spanish colony. End of story. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, lighten up, Pat. "Buried" was a bit of exaggeration for effect. But you know my response: The PE is currently not in the lead map, so it certainly is buried to a casual reader interested only in the introduction. Take it easy. SamEV (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
It's there, right under the map at the top, with both Portuguese Empire and Iberian Union linked to! The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
We were discussing the depiction of the PE, Pat. I said the map showing the PE (the Iberian Union map) is buried further down, not links! SamEV (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

After reading this paragraph written by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick: Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately to the Spanish. Which is the reason I insist on it. Also, I ask you this - what happened to the Portuguese colonies when the union dissolved in 1640? If Brazil etc was "Spanish", why did it revert to Portuguese rule without even a fight there?; I understand that Pat Ferrick: a) has not read the discussion from commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png, or b) did not understand the discussion from commons or c) has not wanted to understand the discussion of commons (I don't hope this latter).

A Pat Ferrick's mistake is that he confuses the reality with the utility. Distinguish a Spanish State and a Portuguese State as separate and independent countries is useful for releasing and it is easily understandable to the reader to follow the historic evolution. However, in reality, this conception is correct since the eighteenth century, but is not quite proper for the XVI-XVIIth centuries. I have released reliable sources about how Spain was an ideological aspiration of recovery from the Visigoth and Roman Hispania for contemporaries of the XVI-XVIIth centuries, and therefore is wanted to include Portugal. The important issue to emphasize is that European chancelleries acknowledged Spain as a global power, and not as a collection of independent kingdoms. In fact, there was not an ambassador for the Crown of Aragon, nor an ambassador for the Crown of Castile, but there was a Monarca Católico's ambassador, the Spanish ambassador, and when Portugal joined the Catholic Monarchy, did not retained an independent special ambassador.

If you say that Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately to the Spanish, you are insinuating that only Portugal had a different administration in respect of a Spanish government, and if I follow this misconception, for example in Aragon, there was not a distinct administration, and therefore, you do not know the administrative reality of the Catholic Monarchy, and this is the wrong position that displays the map m:Image: Iberian Union Empires.png. However, if the sentence would have written like this: Reliable sources also say Brazil, and the Portuguese Empire, was administered separately in the Spanish Administration, it indicates that Portugal, such as Aragon, as Castilla, as Flanders, had its own administration; but they were not independent, since territorial councils were settled in Madrid as the Council of Portugal, and above all the councils, was the Councils of State and of War, which encompass the entire Monarchy. In this way, there was a Spanish government (other than that specifically Castilian) for the entire monarchy, which was included in Portugal.

And here, the second error of Pat, he confuses Castilian with Spanish. While the burden of the monarchy was Castilian, there was an administration in Castilla which did not affect the other territories of the monarchy. When Pat Ferrick says Also, I ask you this - what happened to the Portuguese colonies when the union Dissolved in 1640? If Brazil and so was "Spanish", why did it revert to Portuguese rule without even a fight there?, we could talk also about Ceuta. But I want that you understand that Brazil, like India and other Portuguese territories were Spanish territories, because they belonged to the King of Spain, and when they rose up and stopped belonging to the king of Spain, they ceased to be Spanish. I put in commons a book of Portuguese diplomatic treaties where it appears that the ruler of Portugal was the King of Espanha. The problem is terminological, we can not say that Brazil belonged to Castilla, because Portugal has never been Castile, and did not belong to the administration of Castile, but Brazil as Portugal was Spanish for 60 years, as part of its polisinodial administration.

I have already tried this issue with The Ogre, and we agreed to establish an animated map, so, I do not understand to continue spinning about the same issue without taking into account the profitable discussion about the map in commons. It is true that we have communicated in Spanish and Portuguese for ease, but with the Google translator I do not think that there were much problem in reading that discussion. But of course, it is easier to use arguments as valid as Brazil was never a Spanish colony. End of story, than engaging in reading the historical sources of the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, as I added. Trasamundo (talk) 17:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

That one liner about Brazil not being Spanish is my soundbite rather than argument. My arguments are all based on reliable sources, and I've listed them above. Note that also historians - English language historians, at least - refer to "Spain" and "Portugal" in this period. They don't split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms. Incidentally, I found yet another source that concurs with my view. In "Islands and Empires - Western Impact on the Pacific and East Asia", Ernest S. Dodge writes "In 1580...Philip II of Spain claimed the throne of Portugal. For the next sixty years the crowns of the two Iberian kingdoms remained united. The combined empires circled the globe...in spite of the union of the two crowns, the Portuguese were [not] about to give up their spheres of influence. The two countries were not formally united, and it was specifically agreed that the two colonial empires should remain administratively separate." The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I will try to offer an analytical perspective from my limited English.

I think sometimes that Pat Ferrick, whom I see great presence in this discussion page, looks like a photocopier without considering consequences of what has made.

If we take a paragraph of Pat, we read: «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.» I reply: I do not understand the difference between Spanish and Habsburg Empire realms, it's like to differentiate between Angevine Empire and House of Plantagenet realms. Afterwards, in the next sentence I would have said: The quotes I provide distinguish the Spanish Empire from the Portuguese Empire during the time of the union of the crowns but they did not explain in detail the structure of the Habsburg Monarchy ergo it is necessary to provide sources that indicate how the monarchy was constituted to make a map accordingly.

The following paragraph is even more surprising: «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».

And at another place he repeated: «Note that also historians - English language historians, at least - refer to "Spain" and "Portugal" in this period. They don't split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms» y «The two countries were not formally united, and it was specifically agreed that the two colonial empires should remain administratively separate».

Well, if we adopt that there are two realms: the Kingdom of Portugal and Spain (??), this viewpoint indicated that each kingdom had its own jurisdiction-independent administration, which is false (there is no single independent jurisdiction for Spain), this viewpoint does not explain how a Council of Portugal could exist in the Court of Madrid, however, when Felipe II was king of England there was not a Council of England in the Court of Madrid, because England was a kingdom completely independent, this viewpoint does not explain how the king of Spain appears as ruler of Portugal in relation to other nations in international treaties, nor why the Dutch attacked Brazilian territories of a separate Portuguese Empire.

Pat Ferrick relates a period of Spanish history and does not care to analyze the political structure at the time, with the exception of Portugal, which is the only territory that seems to be having the privilege of this analysis, others not. Well, that's the logic of Pat, worrying an area particularly and ignoring everyone else. If some historians do not split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms, Pats said amen and finish of the discussion.

That viewpoint is not logical, since we will find that a serie of sources fit for an article, and for another article of the same epoch and place, other different sources fit to it, and it seems that no matter whether the issues might be contradicted, so, I want to say that it does not seem to be coherent to demonstrate that in an article the Spanish monarchy included in its structure to Portugal, and in another article that the Portuguese empire was not forming a part of this monarchy, or even to say that Portugal was forming a part of the Spanish monarchy, but not the Portuguese empire. Anyway, all of this is very strange, and I wonder why it would not be permitted to expand and complete the Spanish Empire with legal and administrative input about how to rule? Were not ruled the territories?. It seems so scarce adducingthat the overseas empires of both nations remained separate.

But I am going to penetrate into this matter about the constitution of the Spanish Monarchy, and subsequently about its empire. First I will take the relation between Castile and Aragon. In Historia de España directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara Ed. Labor, ISBN 84-335-9425-7 (page 201), places us in the es:Alteraciones of Aragon:

«Las Alteraciones de Aragón ponen de relieve los límites del poder real fuera del territorio castellano, así como los sentimientos de los aragoneses, que consideraban a los castellanos como extranjeros. El poderío de Carlos V y, mucho más, el de Felipe II es impresionante y, sin embargo, llama la atención la falta de coherencia de aquel cuerpo inmenso, formado por varias naciones que no tienen la imprensión de pertenecer a una misma comunidad. El lazo lo constituye el monarca, asesorado por los Consejos territoriales: Consejo Real o Consejo de Castilla, Consejo de Indias, Consejo de Aragón, Consejo de Italia (separado del anterior en 1555), Consejo de Flandes, Consejo de Portugal... Existen organismos comunes: el Consejo de Guerra, el Consejo de Estado, pero que están vueltos más bien hacia los asuntos diplomáticos y militares.La gran política, la política exterior, es cosa exclusiva del soberano; a los pueblos solo se les exige que contribuyan con los impuestos» (The Alterations of Aragon emphasize the limits of the royal power out of the Castilian territory, as well as the feelings of the Aragonese, who were considering the Castilians as foreigners. The power of Carlos V and, much more, that of Philip II is impressive and, nevertheless, it calls the attention the lack of coherence of that immense body, formed by several nations that do not have the imprensión of belonging to the same community . The link is constituted by the monarch advised by the territorial Councils: Royal Council or Council of Castile, Council of The Indies, Council of Aragon, Council of Italy (separated from the previous one in 1555), Council of Flanders, Council of Portugal... Common organisms exist: the Council of War, the Council of State, but they are turned rather towards the diplomatic and military matters. The great politics, the foreign policy, is an exclusive issue of the sovereign one; only is demanded from the peoples that they contribute with the taxes). And this is not an original research. Every kingdom had its particular administration, and this was not an exclusive matter of the Portuguese territory. Aragon was composed by several united kingdoms and it did not lose its jurisdictions (Fueros) nor its institutions up to the Decretos de Nueva Planta in the 18th century, and it did not have colonies in America. Then, why is indicated so stubbornly that Portugal had its own administration and Aragon did not have it?, why this inequality?.

Nevertheless, there is a terminological confusion between Castile and Spain, and there is an appellant contrasts of Portugal opposite to Spain. Pat pronounced: «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."». Well then, continuing this logic: if certain historians use the term catalano-Aragonese Crown to refer to the Crown of Aragon, and there exist other historians who justify their opposition to this term, then, according to Pat Ferrick's reasoning, there would be necessary to use irrationally catalano-Aragonese Crown, because he has read it just like that, and ending of the discussion.

What I wonder is how it is possible to justify a terminology in sources that they do not treat specifically a subject matter of administrative and organizational type, this is like to try to justify knowledge of botany in very good books of kitchen recipes. The reliables sources that Pat has presented, seem that they offer a good information of economy, trade, religion, conflicts and battles, but they limp on having explained conscientiously the organizational structure, but this does not want to say that there should be no books nor historians that explain that issues.

In the bookEspaña en Europa by John Huxtable Elliott and Rafael Benítez Sánchez-Blanco, University of Valencia (2002), there is talk of a composite monarchy ( but not independent kingdoms), in which each constituent kingdom retained its identity, pages 79-80 «Una parecida buena voluntad a aceptar disposiciones constitucionales e institucionales ya existentes había informado la política de Felipe II ante la unión de Castilla con Portugal. Siguiendo el tradicional estilo de los Habsburgo, esta unión de coronas de 1580 fue otra unión dinástica, aeque principaliter, cuidadosamente planificada para asegurar la supervivencia de la identidad portuguesa, así como la de su imperio» (A similar good will to accept constitutional and institutional already existing dispositions had informed Philip II's policy before the union of Castile with Portugal. Following the traditional style of the Hapsburg, this union of Crowns of 1580 was another dynastic union, aeque principaliter, carefully planned to assure the survival of the Portuguese identity, as well as that of its empire). Hereby, the Portuguese empire ceased to exist during this never swindles (1580-1640) and become subsumed into the Castilian kingdom ever (and his(her,your) colonies), but I will indicate later that both territories Castile and Portugal, with Aragon belonged to the Spanish Monarchy, with its Empire.

More specifically, Elliot reports of what the Catholic Monarchy consists: page 73:

«Dado que el absentismo real era un rasgo ineludible de las monarquías compuestas, era probable que el primer y más importante cambio que experimentase un reino o provincia anexionado a otro más poderoso que él, fuese la marcha de la corte, la pérdida de a categoría de capital de su ciudad principal y el cambio de monarca por un gobernador o virrey. Ningún virrey podía compensar la ausencia del monarca en estas sociedades de la Europa moderna, donde su presencia se consideraba decisiva. Sin embargo, la solución española de designar un consejo compuesto por consejeros autóctonos al servicio del rey palió en gran medida el problema, al proporcionar un foro en el que las opiniones y agravios locales pudieran manifestarse en la corte y el conocimiento local fuese tenido en cuenta a la hora de determinar una política. A un nivel más alto, el Consejo de Estado, compuesto en su mayor parte, pero no siempre en exclusiva, por consejeros castellanos, se mantenía en reserva como última instancia, al menos nominal, de toma de decisiones y de coordinación política atenta a los intereses de la monarquía en su totalidad. Esto no existía en la monarquía compuesta inglesa del siglo XVII» (Since that the royal absenteeism was an unavoidable feature of the compound monarchies, it was probable that the first one and more important change that was experiencing a kingdom or province annexed to other one more powerful that it, it was the develop of the court, the loss of to category of the capital of its principal city and the monarch's change for a governor or viceroy. No viceroy could compensate the absence of the monarch in these societies of the modern Europe, where his presence was considered to be decisive. Nevertheless, the Spanish solution of designating an council composed by autochthonous counselors to the service of the king relieved to a great extent the problem, on having provided a forum in which the opinions and local damages could demonstrate in the court and the local knowledge was had in account at the moment of determining a policy. To a higher level, the Council of State, composed in its most, but not always in sole right, for Castilian counselors, it was kept in reserve as last instance, at least nominally, of making of decisions and of political coordination observant to the interests of the monarchy in its entirety. This did not exist in the compound English monarchy of the 17th century). With regard to the above mentioned, Pat Ferrick has affirmed, with respect to Portugal: It was a union of the crowns, like James VI of Scotland and I of England, not a "takeover"; nevertheless, Elliot denies this similarity, probably Pat, you also do personal research. Also, it would be necessary to ask if Portugal was not forming a part of Spain, according to Pat Ferrick's conception, pero how we explain that the Council of State was dealing with the whole monarchy including Portugal?.

Elliot also presents the origin of the confusion between Castile and Spain, page 78: «Los castellanos, al poseer un imperio en las Indias y al reservarse los beneficios para sí mismos, aumentaron extraordinariamente su riqueza y poder en relación con sus otros reinos y provincias. [...] La posesión de un imperio de ultramar por una parte de la unión de la unión hizo que esa misma unión pensase en términos de dominación y subordinación, contrarios a la concepción que alentaba la supervivencia de una monarquía compuesta unida aeque principaliter.

Allí donde una parte componente de la monarquía compuesta no es sólo obviemente superior a las otras en poder y recursos, sino que también se comporta como si lo fuese, las otras partes sentirán naturalemente que sus identidades se encuentran cada vez más bajo amenaza. Esto es lo que ocurrió a la Monarquía española del siglo XVI y principios del XVII, cuando los reinos y provincias no castellanos se vieron en clara y creciente desventaja con respecto a Castilla» (Castilians, on having possessed an empire in the Indies and on having saved the benefits for themselves, increased extraordinarily their wealth and power in relation with their other kingdoms and provinces. [...] The possession of an empire of overseas on one hand of the union of the union did that the same union was thinking about terms of domination and subordination, opposite to the conception that it was encouraging the survival of a compound united monarchy aeque principaliter. There where a part component of the compound monarchy is not only obviously superior to others in power and resources, but also, it behaves as if it were, other parts will feel certainly that their identities are increasingly under threat. This is what happened to Spanish Monarchy of the 16th century and beginning of the XVIIth, when the kingdoms and provinces not Castilians were in clear and increasing disadvantage with regard to Castile).

And also shows that Portugal was part of the Spanish monarchy, page 190 «Cataluña, Portugal, Nápoles y Sicilia eran sociedades gobernadas por control remoto desde Madrid, y de modo más inmediato por los virreyes, que no podían compensar plenamente la ausencia de la persona regia. Todas ellas resultaron víctimas de las exigencias fiscales y militares de la Corona española» (Catalonia, Portugal, Naples and Sicily were societies governed by remote control from Madrid, and in a more immediate way for the viceroys, who could not compensate fullly the absence of the royal person. All of them they turned out to be victims of the fiscal requirements and military men of the Spanish Crown). page. 88 ¿Cómo se mantuvieron cohesionadas durante tanto tiempo uniones tan artificiales en origen y tan flexibles en organización? La contigüidad, como afirmaban sus contemporáneos, era indudablemente una gran ayuda, si bien resultó insuficientemente a la hora de mantener a Portugal dentro de la Monarquía española (How were such artificial unions kept united during so much time in origin and so flexible in organization? The contiguity, as its contemporary ones were affirming, it was undoubtedly a great help, though it proved insufficiently at the moment of retaining Portugal inside the Spanish Monarchy); page 182 «Durante 1640, las clases dirigentes en Cataluña y Portugal se mostraron dispuestas a apoyar una revuelta contra la autoridad real o participar en ella. Las precondiciones de este propósito parecen hallarse tanto en la estructura constitucional de la Monarquía española, con su incómoda combinación de gobierno centralizado y realeza absentista como en la politica seguida por Madrid en los veinte años precedentes» (During 1640, the leader classes in Catalonia and Portugal proved to be ready to support a revolt against the royal authority or to take part in it. The previous conditions of this intention seem to be situated so much in the constitutional structure of the Spanish Monarchy, with its inconvinient combination of centralized government and royalty absentee as in the politics followed by Madrid since twenty previous years).

I want that anyone understand that there was no opposition between the kingdom and Portugal and the kingdom of Spain during 1580-1640, but that the kingdom of Portugal, the kingdom of Castile, the kingdom of Aragon ... belonged to the Spanish Realms, which was recognized as an international entity but lacked a strong central administration. Each kingdom remain administratively separate, and in this way, Brazil or Goa were a colonies of Portugal, which belonged to the King of Espanha [15], As the sovereign of the spanish realms. Pat argues that as the overseas empires of both nations remained separate therefore this means that they were both two independent countries, but I already have mentioned how Tuñón de Lara indicates that the Aragonese saw the Castilians as foreigners. In relation to this, again Elliot in La Europa dividida, ISBN 84-323-0116-7, focuses on the Castilian term, since in the end Castilians had the territories in America, not the Aragonese, and when he uses Spanish, he refers to the whole monarchy as a whole: (page 284): «Se acordó también que las instituciones políticas y representativas de Portugal deberían permanecer intactas, y que los castellanos tampoco debían ser autorizados a participar en la vida comercial de Portugal ni en la de su imperio. Estas concesiones de Felipe significaban que, aunque la península ibérica se había por fin unido en persona de un solo monarca, Portugal continuaba siendo incluso más que Aragón y cataluña, un Estado semiindependiente, asociado, no incorporado, a la Corona de Castilla [...] [Felipe] Consiguió también, y sin lucha, un segundo imperio imperio ultramarino: la India y África portuguesas, las Molucas y Brasil. Esto significaba un enorme aumento de poder para la monarquía española, la cual aparecía ante sus rivales como un coloso invencible montado encima del mundo» (It was also agreed that the political and representative institutions of Portugal should remain intact, and that Spanish should not be authorized to participate neither in the commercial life of Portugal, nor in that of its empire. These grants of Philip meant that, although the Iberian peninsula were finally joined into a single person of an alone monarch, Portugal continued to be, even more than Aragon and Catalonia, a semiindependent, associated, unincorporated to the Crown of Castile [...] [Philip] got also, and without fight, a second overseas empire: the Portuguese India and Africa, the Moluccas and Brazil. This meant a huge increase in power for the Spanish monarchy, which appeared before his rivals as an invincible colossus mounted over the world).

From this issue, we extract that the Portuguese empire continued existing, its language, its administration, but it was not independent, but a part of the realms of Spain as Spain was understood in the epoch of the 17th century. John H . Elliott refers this in Spain and its world, 1500-1700, but Pat seems disagreed because in the page 235 this author distinguishes the Spanish and Portuguese Empires. Well then, in a book quoted by Pat Asia in the Making of Europe: A Century of Advance (Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley) indicates in its page 22, that Portugal belonged to the Spanish Crown: «Before the end of the year, the secession of Portugal from the Spanish crown had been proclaimed and at Lisbon the Bragança duke was crowned King John IV».

Enrique San Miguel Pérez España y sus Coronas. Un concepto político en las últimas voluntades de los Austrias hispánicos. Cuadernos de Historia del Derecho nº 3. págs. 253-270. Servicio de Publicaciones Universidad Complutense de Madrid, quotes Philip II's will (and others kings) [page 264]: «que los dichos reynos de la Corona de Portugal ayan siempre de andar y anden juntos y unidos con los reynos de la Corona de Castilla, sin que jamás se puedan dividir ni apartar» (That the above mentioned kingdoms of the Crown of Portugal exist always of going and go together and joined with the kingdoms of the Crown of Castile, without they could never divide nor separate ).

I already indicated that Castile was not the same thing that Spain, I will pass to reflect what the contemporaries of the 17th century understood on what it was Spain. es:Juan de Palafox y Mendoza quotes in Juicio secreto e interior de la Monarquía para mí solo: «Felipe II perfeccionó la Monarquía con agregar la Corona de Portugal, y sus Indias Orientales á los restante de España» (Philip II perfected the Monarchy adding the Crown of Portugal, and their East Indies to the remaining Spanish). It seem that it is a primary source, but this is also quoted in Escritos seleccionados by José María Jover Zamora, Marc Baldó i Lacomba y Pedro Ruiz Torres, Universitat de València (1997), pág 79, where is indicated: «enseguida tendremos ocasión de comprobar que es precisamente el problema de la unión entre las tres Coronas de los reinos peninsulares y ultramarinos de España lo que centra el interés, la inquietud y la angustia de nuestro escritor». En la página 81 dice «La experiencia de 1640 deja todavía intacto el concepto de España como realidad peninsular; de nación española como gentilicio de aplicación común a castellanos, catalenes o portugueses» (we will soon have occasion to verify that it is precisely the problem of the union between the three Crowns of the peninsular and overseas kingdoms of Spain which focuses the interest, the concern and the distress of our writer). In the page 81 says «La experiencia de 1640 deja todavía intacto el concepto de España como realidad peninsular; de nación española como gentilicio de aplicación común a castellanos, catalanes o portugueses» (The experience of 1640 makes the concept of Spain still intact as peninsular reality; of Spanish nation as(like) national of common application to Castilians, Catalans or Portuguese).; y en la page 88 ndicates this wide conception of Spain: «En fin, el proceso iniciado con la Restauración portuguesa de 1640, formalizado jurídicamente en 1668 con el reconocimiento de la independencia de Portugal por Carlos II, queda consolidado tras la guerra de sucesión y el establecimiento de una nueva dinastía. España ha dejado de ser definitivamente la expresión geográfica e histórica , comprensiva de toda la Península, arragigada en una noble tradición clásica; España ha pasado a ser una entidad política que comparte, con otra entidad política llamada Portugal, el solar de la Hispania del Renacimiento» (Al last, the process begun with the Portuguese Restoration of 1640, formalized juridically in 1668 with the recognition of the independence of Portugal by Carlos II, stays consolidate after the succession war and the establishment of a new dynasty. Spain abandoned definitively the geographical and historical expression, comprehensive of the whole Peninsula, ingrained in a noble classic tradition; Spain has become a political entity that shares, with another political entity called Portugal, the lot of the Hispania of the Renaissance). Inside the same book, page 77 and other historians as Elliot [16] appears Count-Duke's conception of Spain of institutionalizing and centralizing the monarchy, as well as explained in a memorandum addressed to King Philip IV: «Tenga Vuestra Majestad por el negocio más importante de su Monarquía el hacerse Rey de España; quiero decir que no se contente con ser Rey de Portugal, de Aragón, de Valencia, conde de Barcelona, sino que trabaje por reducir estos reinos de que se compone España al estilo y leyes de Castilla sin ninguna diferencia, que si Vuestra Majestad lo alcanza será el príncipe más poderoso del mundo» (For Your Majesty the most important business of State is to become King of Spain. I mean, Sire, that you should not be content to be King of Portugal, of Aragon, of Valencia and Count of Barcelona but you should direct all your work and thought, with the most experienced and secret advice, to reduce these realms which make up Spain to the same order and legal system as Castile, that if Your Majesty reaches it will be the most powerful prince of the world). In the page 77 of Jover's book, we read «Su audaz arbitrio apuntaba a una especie de consumación del movimiento renacentista encaminado a la reconstrucción de la España visigoda, centrada en torno a Castilla, fundiendo en un solo molde las tres Coronas destinadas a fundamentar la monarquía. Lo prematuro de tal propuesta quedará reflejado, cinco años más tarde, en unos párrafos de la Suplicación dirigida al mismo monarca por el portugués Lorenzo de Mendoza, allí donde alude a la unión de Reinos y Monarquía de Vuestra Majestad, que principalmente depende de estas tres Coronas de Castilla, Portugal y Aragón unidas y hermanadas» (His bold freewill pointed to a kind of consummation of the Renaissance movement directed to the reconstruction of the Visigothic Spain, centered around Castilla, merging into a single mold the three Crowns destined to support the monarchy. The premature of such will be reflected, five years later, in a few paragraphs of Suplicación "Suplicación" addressed to the same monarch for the Portuguese Lorenzo of Mendoza, where he alludes to the union of Kingdoms and Monarchy of Your Majesty, who principally depends on these three Crowns of Castile, Aragon and Portugal joined and related).

Therefore, it is necessary to notice that the authors who treat the juridical and governmental content of the Monarchy, use a precise terminology according to the primary sources, whereas other authors label what Spanish is and what Portuguese is, as a useful way of including long temporary processes of economic or military type; but from the specifically juridical area it is necessary to enter the issues as they were, and not and not as they may be more understandable for the reader. What I come to say is that a historian who treats on trade and economy in his book, he is not going to offer juridical details so precise as another author who analyzes the government of the Monarchy. Why are rejected some sources that use a terminology adapted to the original sources, as opposed to others which we do know the origin of terminology?. Perhaps Pat Ferrick should notice that you are using Bias

Finally, in the Historical World Atlas (its original title is DTV - Atlas zur Weltgeschichte) by Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, Ediciones Istmo (1986) ISBN 84-7090-005-6, in the page 258, appears a mapentitled as «El Imperio mundial hispano-portugués h. 1580» where in appears with of the same color all the territories of the king Philip II. Nevertheless, it has copyright and I do not be how to announce it.

Bye. --Trasamundo (talk) 01:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like others to consider your opinions, please keep them brief. The above is verging on an essay and is extremely difficult to read. All I have to say at the moment is that your last reference proves my point. It's labelled El Imperio mundial hispano-portugués, not Imperio mundial hispano. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
First of all, I apologize if I have spoken to Pat Ferrick in offensive terms. Proceed to the matter, I have to say that if I have written such a wide exposition, it is precisely to analyze in detail this whole issue without gaps of doubt, but I can summarize it briefly:
There are historians who put their attention in socioeconomic aspects (for example), and therefore, they will not use a precise terminology to refer to the juridical area, it does not mean that the information is incorrect or that the source is invalid, simply, there are used terms accommodated to the reality of the information to divulgation (they are useful words for the comprehension of the reader), otherwise these historians would have to leave of the main topic to explain juridical basis of the legal terminology, the same issue happens with generic historians, who focusing on facts they will be able or not to put determination in the juridical winding path, according to the book and the author; on the contrary, if we read authors who put their attention in the juridical-governmental matter, then, they will use primary sources and they will interpret them consequently; So, the thesis which I advocate, is to take into account these authors who have in mind the jurisdiction, diplomacy, the law..., since they offer us a more complete vision of the Spanish empire based on the primary sources of the period, and these primary and secondary sources tell us that Portugal with its empire joined to the framework of the Spanish monarchy of the Hapsburg, retaining its institutions as all the kingdoms of the Catholic monarchy, to which other countries and chancelleries referring as Spain. This is what I have contributed in this talk page and in commons, and I indicate that Pat Ferrick contributes bias if he ignores these thesis.
In this respect, the quoted Atlas Histórico Mundial offers concise facts, date and good maps, but it suffers from juridical gaps, so that the terminology does not agree to a rigorous standard, but divulgative one. In the page 253 we read: «Incorporación de Portugal a la Corona española. La fricción entre las políticas expansionistas de Castilla y Portugal había planteado a los Reyes Católicos el objetivo de la unión peninsular, perseguida mediante la unión de enlaces matrimoniales. 17-7-1580 Felipe II (nieto de Manuel I de Portugal por línea materna), ayudado por la hábil negociación de Cristóbal de Moura, es proclamado soberano. Días antes el pretendiente Antonio prior de Crato (apoyado por el pueblo y el bajo clero) se proclama rey (huyendo tras la entrada del ejército del duque de Alba y la amenaza de la escuadra del marqués de Santa Cruz). 16-4-1581 Las Cortes de Tomar reconocen soberano a Felipe II, que jura respetar todas las libertades portuguesas (lo cual cumple escrupulosamente). [...] 12-10-1640: Una junta de nobles, reunida en Lisboa, dispone el levantamiento contra Castilla para el 1-12-1640: los conspiradores detienen a la gobernadora de Portugal, Margarita de Saboya, y estalla en todo el país un motín popular» (Incorporation of Portugal to the Spanish Crown. The friction between the expansionist policies of Castile and Portugal had raised to the Catholic Kings the goal of the peninsular union, pursued through the union of matrimonial relationships. 17-7-1580 Philip II (grandson of Manuel I of Portugal by mother line), helped by Cristóbal de Moura's skilful negotiation, is proclaimed sovereign. Days before the claimant Antonio prior of Crato (supported by the people and the lesser clergy) is proclaimed a king (fleeing after the entry of the duke of Alba's army and the threat of the Marquess of Santa Cruz's squadron). 16-4-1581 The Cortes of Tomar acknowledges Philip II as sovereign, who swears to respect all the Portuguese freedoms (which performs scrupulously). [...] 12-10-1640: A lords' junta, assembled in Lisbon, disposes the raising up against Castile for 1-12-1640: the conspirators arrest the governor of Portugal, Margarita de Saboya, and a popular riot erupts in the whole country.)
It is for this, because I encourage an animated map as a optimal and wise solution to observe the evolution of the territory known as Spain and its possessions in the world, at any given moment; Portugal joined to the administrative structure that existed in the Spain of the Catholic Kings and Charles I, an administrative structure that remained in effect until Philip V, and, I return to repeat, where every kingdom of the Monarchy retained its own administration.
Bye. Trasamundo (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Here you can read a fragment of "Historia del Imperio Español" (Ciriaco Pérez Bustamante, catedrático de Historia de España) that confirms Trasamundo's arguments:
Las dimensiones del Imperio español.- En tiempos de Felipe II llega a su cumbre la extensión territorial del Imperio hispánico, casi planetario. En Europa posee toda la Península ibérica (reinos de Castilla, Aragón y Portugal), las islas Baleares, el Rosellón y la Cerdaña en la frontera francesa, el Franco Condado, los Países Bajos, el Milanesado, Nápoles, Sicilia, Cerdeña y los presidios de Toscana. En Africa, Orán, Mazalquivir, Melilla, Ceuta, Tánger, Arcila, Mazagán, las islas Canarias, Madera, Azores, Cabo Verde, territorios en el golfo de Guinea, islas Santo Domingo, Príncipe, Fernando Poo, Annobón y Santa Elena, Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Sofala, Zambeze. En Asia, los establecimientos portugueses del golfo Pérsico (Ormuz), de la India (Goa, Angediva, Cananor, Cochin), Malaca y Macao (China), y en Oceanía, las colonias portuguesas de las Molucas y Timor y las españolas de Filipinas. En América, la posesión portuguesa del Brasil y el inmenso dominio hispánico desde el estrecho de Magallanes hasta California, la Florida y las grandes Antillas.
You can read that Portugal and his colonies form a part of the Spanish Empire. --Durero (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
You must think I was born yesterday to believe that I won't realise that Durero and Trasamundo are one and the same individual. Let me remind you that pretending to be more than one person to try to give the impression of a majority opinion to win an argument is not gentlemanly conduct here at Wikipedia. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
I think before you accuse me or Trasamundo, you must read Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette. What evidence you have to say that «Durero and Trasamundo are one and the same individual»? You can go Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser if you want, I can assure you that you are wrong. I am sure that in the Wikipedia in Spanish you would have been punished after this. In Commons (Durero and Trasamundo) and in the Spanish Wikipedia (Durero and Trasamundoyou can see that we are two different persons. As a curiosity, I am an administrator in the Spanish Wikipedia. You can write me here. --Durero (talk) 18:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Although Durero has responded before, I would add: I do not know if you were born yesterday, but you're accusing me of something I would like that you prove. Let me remind you WP:GOODFAITH (Civility, Maturity, Responsibility) y WP:NPA (Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence). You may post a report a request for checkuser. Nevertheless, I do not get angry for your huff WP:SIGNS (In the event of an edit war, it is quite easy for accusations of sock puppetry to occur), although it seems that it is an ad hominem argument.
If I knew that there was this discussion in English wikipedia is due to the fact that The Ogre put his comments across several wikis. I, Trasamundo, discussed with The Ogre in the commons about the image of the Spanish empire, which is an image that is in commons, not in the English wikipedia, I remember. While all other wikis discussions are stopped since The Ogre has not exposed the animated map, nevertheless, in this talk page there is a continuous spin about an image that is not here, but in commons. Because of it, I brought my arguments from commons and I exposed them here, then, I asked for Durero to put the source that he had put in the talk page in commons, because I thought that was not correct that I put a source which I do not have it, and for avoiding that you accused me of personal research. You will say to me that this is designated as meatpuppet, but Durero's commentary was introduced previously in commons and by request of The Ogre, the only thing that there has done Durero is put his own source into the English wikipedia, only in order that you, Pat Ferrick, read it, since you think that in commons there is many crap (User_talk:The_Ogre#Spanish Map) and it seems that your eyes do not get ready to read out of English wikipedia. At any rate, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick can invite someone to participate in the discussions (User_talk:The_Ogre#Dutch Empire), but I cannot.
Finally if I keep track of your logic, then I am a meatpuppet for The Ogre because The Ogre informed me about this talk page, or The Ogre and The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick are the same person because both have uphold the same viewpoint, or better, I am The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick's Straw puppet. Simply hilarious. Trasamundo (talk) 19:10, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
From the outside, since I haven't taken part in the previous discussions. Wouldn't it be possible to create different maps of the "Spanish Empire" in different key dates? For example, a map of the territories of the Catholic or Hispanic Monarchy (the terms more widely used by scholars right now since Spain or Spanish Empire is possibly an anachronistic term) after and before the death of Charles V, after and before the Iberian Union, after the Portuguese restoration, after the Treatry of Utrecht, after the Hispanic American independence, after 1898 and in the fifties... Properly named (not confusing Spain with the Catholic Monarchy) would be enough, isn't it? --Ecemaml (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I already exposed that idea to The Ogre but he answered me that the rules of wikipedia for modern empires were to use anachronous maps (commons:Image talk:Spanish Empire.png#Resposta e Proposta), but I do not know where these rules are. I believe that it does not prevent that these maps are used for different epochs. Trasamundo (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I haven't read such a rule anywhere, so it should be dismissed. IMHO, the main issue is the one related to the name, "Spanish Empire"... For me, the term Hispanic Monarchy or Catholic Monarchy is the term that most accurately defines such an empire (especially when it comes to the Ancient Regime). After the Spanish Independence War and the Hispanic-American independence, the term Spain is possibly mostly accurate. With regard to the map, I think that the most appropriate one would be one depicting the Hispanic Monarchy at his highest extension, providing an appropriate name (for instance, "The territories of the Hispanic Monarchy at its highest extension (during the Iberian Union, 15xx-16xx don't remember the dates). Regards --Ecemaml (talk) 11:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
It is the convention, not the rule, I think he meant. And maps should be based on maps in reliable sources, not based on what you feel is most appropriate or accurate. I'm yet to see a map in a reliable source which has Brazil labelled as "Spanish". I have provided several sources already where the empires are either labelled separately or are labelled "Spanish-Portuguese Empire" (ie a joint entity). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Well, what I tried to point out was simply that possibly the name of the article is not the best one. Portugal and its empire was, for several decades yet another possession of the Hispanic Monarchy. Using the term "Spanish Empire" when the term Spain is used with different meanings (which by the way is the root cause of this endless discussion) is simply misleading. With regard to sources, I have one that possibly illustrates the problem. Henry Kamen in Empire: How Spain Became a World Power (I have the Spanish edition), when talking about the "Spanish empire" (written between quotation marks) administered by Philip II, lists Portugal and its dominions, but adding "Portugal and its dominions, ruled by the Spanish chrown between 1580 and 1640, always kept its autonomy and, officially, were not under Spanish administration" (mind that it's an English translation, mine, from my edition in Spanish which, in itself, is a translation from an original in English). Best regards --Ecemaml (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Your suggestion that the name should be changed is making the same point that I have always made. This is an article on the Spanish Empire. It is not an article on the Habsburg Empire, although of course it is not possible to discuss one without referring to the other. But the two are not equivalent, and the title makes it clear which one this article is about. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
I have tried it, as Wikipedia:Etiquette indicates: If someone disagrees with you, try to understand why, and in your discussion on the talk pages take the time to provide good reasons why you think that your way is better. I apologize if I have done too long explaines to discover the shortcomings of the opposite viewpoint and to contribute reliable sources to provide a broader and more inclusive perspective without contradictions, but I specially regret the wasted time in translation and making my statement for being systematically ignored. For those who want to read, I'm going to provide other contributions to dismount proud assertions like these:

«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», «Brazil was never a Spanish colony. End of story». We can read:

-Stafford Poole (2004), Juan de Ovando: Governing the Spanish Empire in the Reign of Phillip II University of Oklahoma Press: «[About the empire ruled by Philip II] After 1580, with the absortion of Portugal, Philip would rule the entire Iberian Peninsula and the Portuguese empire in Brazil and the Far East». (page 102)
-John Huxtable Elliott (2006) Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America, 1492-1830. Yale University Press: The confinement of my story to Spanish, rather tan Iberian, America means the almost total exclusion of the Portuguese settlement of Brazil, except for glancing references to the sixty-year period, from 1580-1640, when it formed part of Spain's global monarchy. (page xviii)
-Christophe Koch, Maximillian Samson Friedrich Schoell, Andrew Crichton (1839). The Revolutions of Europe: Being an Historical View of the European Nations from the Subversion of the Roman Empire in the West to the Abdication of Napoleon; Whittaker and co.: «Charles V of Austria, grandson of Ferdinand, and his sucessor in the Spanish monarchy, added to that crown the Low Countries and Franche-Comté [...]. Charles resigned the Spanish monarchy to his son Philip II which then comprehended the Low Countries the kingdoms of Naples, Sicily and Sardinia, the duchy of Milan, and the Spanish possessions in America. [...] To the states which were left him by his father, Philip added the kingdom of Portugal with the Portuguese possessions in Africa Asia and America, but this was the termination of his prosperity». (page 98)
-John Armstrong Crow (1980), The Epic of Latin America. University of California Press page 195: «During all these years Portugal and Spain formed a single kingdom (1580-1640). Philip II had made good his claims to the Portuguese throne by force, and the little kingdom did not regain its independence until 1640, when Spanish power was well on the decline. Consequently, the Spanish monarch was also ruler of Brazil, and the mamelucos of Sao Paulo, as well as the Jesuit mission Indians, were his subjects. [...] page 250: For example, in 1640, when Portugal freed herself from the yoke pf Spain, the Paulist decided to declare their own independence of Portugal and choose their own king. page 364: Beginning about 1580, a few single ships under special register or permit were allowed to enter the harbor of Buenos Aires. They could travel directly to Spain and, in certain cases, were allowed to trade with Brazil, then a part of the Spanish Empire». (page 195-196)
-Marc Jetten (1994), Enclaves amérindiennes: les "réductions" du Canada, 1637-1701, Les éditions du Septentrion: «En 1580, à l'occasion de l'anexion du Portugal et de ses colonies à l'empire espagnol, le gouvernement de l'ancienne possesion portugaise de Brésil de destitué (In 1580, during the anexion Portugal and its colonies to the Spanish Empire, the government of the former Portuguese possession of Brazil is removed)».
And with regard to the allegation «Note that also historians - English language historians, at least - refer to "Spain" and "Portugal" in this period. They don't split hairs about the nature of the relationships between the various kingdoms», I have already demonstrated properly that historians who rely on primary sources drop such assertions, although they refine assertions as «The two countries were not formally united, and it was specifically agreed that the two colonial empires should remain administratively separate» distinguishing Spain forCastile. I'll put another source: Ali Farazmand (1994) Handbook of Bureaucracy, CRC Press: «The nation of Spain resulted from the unification of Castile and Aragon in 1479, although both kingdoms retained their separate governments. At the time of Philip II (reg. 1556-1598) ascended to the throne, he became the ruler of a vast, widely scattered territory, including Spain, the Netherlands, the Two Sicilies, and a rapidly expanding empire in the New World. He added Portugal to his kingdom in 1580, thereby bringing the entire Iberian peninsula under his control. (pag 12) [...] Many of Philip's -and Spain's- problems arose from the highly decentralized nature of the empire. Within Spain proper, Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia had their own laws and tax systems; Portugal retained its separate system from its incorporation in 1580 to its independence in 1640; and Sicily had its own legislature and tax structure. Naples and Milan were under more direct control from Madrid, and the Americas became a major source of revenue for the Crown after 1560». (page 13).
I have submitted reliable sources that show and support a viewpoint. I have made a critical analysis and in the light of which, I find contradictions between both sources. In this regard, I simply pretend to bring the attention of the bias of the reliable sources: It cannot have the same validity sources that they are concerned with the legal issues and analyze primary sources, with regard to other reliable sources that they focus the attention on facts without concerning in the detail nor in the terminological basis; we have found examples in the quoted Altas by Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann, Ediciones Istmo (1986), and the Kamen's book quoted by Ecemaml, where again, the terms are used flexibly and hence, there are different denominations in the speech of the same Kamen, but in spite of that, the knowledge of historical fact is easily understandable, and this book remains a reliable source. In my previous extensive explain, I have already indicated with sources that the scholars who examine the legal structure, primary sources, and proper terminology, settle (those scholars) that Portugal belonged to Spain, the Spanish crown, and therefore its empire, although the administration were separate. what is the reason to ignore these sources? Nobody knows it.
In the same sense, the maps also suffer from the same bias, since the important on the map is not the constitution nor administrative internal structure but the projection on the outside and the variation of borders in the time. Special mention raise me the Ortelius's (not Mercator) maps of 1587, In this map, the territories of Brazil do not appear highlighted in a different way to other Spanish territories, where the borders are demarcated coloring only the edge, a color for New Spain, other one for Peru and other one for Brazil. Turning to another Mercator's map of 1595, it is geographical and it does not indicate any administrative border. In both maps a legend appears in Brazil wich indicates that the Portuguese discovered/found (inventa) Brazil in the year 1504. But from here to imagine that was an independent country then is already throw imagination, and this is speculation and original research; so, in other maps previous to 1580 such a mention does not appear as in Thevez's map of 1575. In other maps do not see this appointment (except Ortelius) Mercator 1587, and when the boundaries appear, they are administrative regions as Mercator 1587, Goos 1626, Plancius 1630,Sparkes 1635, Janssonius 1636. It is interesting to see that in this Plancius' map of 1594 does not exist border which separates Portugal of the rest of Spain, whereas it appears border between England and Scotland. On the other hand, here you have a map of the Spanish monarchy under Philip II, which includes Brazil and India.
Concluding, opposite to the geographical position of Iberia=Spain-Portugal, I present the juridical and legal position Spain=Castile+Aragon+Portugal(1580-1640), supported with reliables sources and answering with reliables sources also to the objections presented. Since I try to understand the opposite point of view, I still will have to read that this is an article about the Spanish Empire (which did not include Portuguese colonies), not an article on the Habsburg Empire (which included Portugal), well then, I will be interested in the difference between both empires is proven with sources, since that affirmation seems original research or synthesis and infringes verifiability; and for curiosity, I would like to know how on the one hand the Spanish empire was organized, and on the other hand Hapsburg empire, especially when the empire Hapsburg refers to Austria, Hungary, Bohemia... I have contributed with sources that demonstrate that the Spanish empire included Portugal and I will await the sources of the one who establishes as absolute truth that the Spanish Empire and the Empire Hapsburg are both distinct concepts to support an idea that is not maintained coherent. Trasamundo (talk) 03:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Man you are verbose. I took a quick look at some of your quotes and they are along the lines of "Philip added to his possessions." For the ten millionth time, it is not in dispute that Philip ruled over the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Also the first map you cited (this one about which you (slightly incomprehensibly) wrote "Special mention raise me the Ortelius's (not Mercator) maps of 1587, In this map, the territories of Brazil do not appear highlighted in a different way to other Spanish territories, where the borders are demarcated coloring only the edge, a color for New Spain, other one for Peru and other one for Brazil.". Erm - excuse me? Underneath "Bresilia", it says "a Lusitanis". Do you know what that means? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 04:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for saying to me verbose, but I do not like prattling.
For the ten millionth time plus one, Philip II did not only rule Portugal with Brazil ... but he integrated it within the organizational framework of the Spanish monarchy inherited from the Catholic Kings and Charles I, I should have been put boldfaces to these fragments: After 1580, with the absortion of Portugal; when it (Brazil) formed part of Spain's global monarchy; added to that crown [Portugal with the Portuguese possessions to Spanish monarchy]; Brazil, then a part of the Spanish Empire; En 1580, à l'occasion de l'anexion du Portugal et de ses colonies à l'empire espagnol. However, these events are not as important as addressing the organizational structure, which actually shows that Portugal was not ruled as an indepedient empire beside a Spanish empire, but it was inside the Spanish monarchy as another kingdom.
The quotation of Ortelius's map (and others of Ortelius and several of Mercator), and Mercator's is Bresilia inventa a Portogalensibus anno 1504, Bresilia a Lusitanis Aº 1504 inventa: Inventa is a verb in form perfect passive participle that it means discovered, a is a ablative preposition (equal to ab) which it means from, away from or by (agent), so we will read Brazil discovered by Portuguese, year 1504. In other posterior maps do not see such quote, and it do not appear in previous others as the quoted Thevet's map of 1575 or this Ramusio's map (1556), which probably it would suggest that before 1580 Brazil was not Portuguese, was it?. Really this quote does not mean anything special. Trasamundo (talk) 15:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I've already outlined many sources here [17]. "The empires remained separate". I have nothing to add to that. Instead of continuing to write paragraph upon paragraph of material here, I suggest we wait until Ogre produces his proposed map. Also, there are far more important things to be done to this article. As it stands right now, it is an awful mess. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher's recent edits

EurohistoryTeacher has been engaging in some editing of longstanding text (without providing references) and has now reverted three times in total despite a request on his talk page to engage here first. (He's also been engaging in personal attacks [18] which, combined with the short contribution history to WP, suggests to me he's a sockpuppet, but that's a different story). I am not going to get engaged in an edit war but I strongly disagree with these edits and hope other editors can encourage him to engage here first. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Look PatFerrick i can tell you ANY FACT about the spanish empire here , just go ahead and ask and please leave and dont encourage vandalism in the spanish empire article, go ahead ask ANYTHING , i will gladly answer

and yes i shouldn't have said Ogre is a liar , i think he is just too proud and you calling me a sockpuppet is not too nice either but i wont make a big scandal like you :) t

Your behaviour is now unacceptable. Not only are you changing the text, you are unilaterally changing the map in spite of the tortuous process of reaching consensus on it. I have asked you politely several times now to use this talk page if you wish to make non-trivial and contentious changes, yet you are ignoring that and persisting in reverting. Please desist from that immediately and outline your arguments here. Otherwise, it's very simple: you will get blocked. Thanks. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay so what do you want? you put the spanish empire and wrote that it ended in 1898! well how? in the map you list spanish sahara but you put the time of the empire until 1898! you dont make sense Spanish sahara was given back in 1898? NO!, well block me if you want but im only trying to make these articles better due to huge bias and incorrect revisionism! stop trying to shut the truth!t

Fair enough about 1898->1975. Not so about the inclusion of the Portuguese Empire in the map. The current map/legend was the result of a long discussion and attempt to reach consensus (readable in the archives). You should not unilaterally change this without seeking agreement here first. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Regards Patrick
do you have a degree on this subject ??do i hear a no?

anyways Spanish Kings in the late 1700s sended conquistadors to place military forts in British Columbia so i think it should be included in the map, also there was military presense in the southern TIP of alaska to the Patagonia , do you undertsnad ? and also the amazon basin wasnt given up until much later because of Torsedila treaty so it should be included in the map , the very same one i uploaded but you deleted , and what about Spanish Prensence in INDIA AND CHINA?! why isnt it shown?! Patrick i would like to have total command of the article for at least 20 minutes without you interrupting and deleting it , you obiously have not as much insight on this particular subject as i do the empire expanded her territory well into the late 19 century when Spain started to colonize nearby islands in the Asia-pacific territory , but she lost them after 1898 , the rest of the asian-pacific islands were sold to Germany in 1899 , finnaly setting the sun on the spanish empire , is this wrong?! NO ITS NOT ! why do you act so bossy and think yourself owner of the article? are you a bot ? or a admin? if not then stop! t —Preceding undated comment was added at 18:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC).

Hello, Patrick.
I would like us all to resolve the map dispute. As you probably remember, I never accepted the exclusion of the PE, so I'm with Teacher on that. Therefore, there cann't said to be a consensus.
Teacher: please stop the edit war. It's possible (I can't say I'm sure, though) that we can work it out here. SamEV (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
(It's Pat Ferrick, not Patrick.) OK, perhaps more accurately, a compromise rather than consensus was reached, but nevertheless, the compromise has stood for over a year, and unilaterally changing it is not the right way to proceed. If you really must reopen the debate (though I groan at the prospect), then feel free to do so here on the talk page. I'd be interested to know what new information you or anyone else has uncovered since the last round. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It will include the info I presented the first time. I think I was developing a pretty good case, which, as I often do, I failed to press. We reached no conclusion, as you know.
And yes, it's Pat! I guess that I keep subconsciously seeing "Patrick" because of "(Fe-)rrick". Just out of curiousity: am I the only one who's called you Patrick? SamEV (talk) 01:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Look Patrick i have created a new map with good sources im ready to put it up , do I HAVE to ask you for permission ?t

Article quality

This article is in serious need of editorial improvements. There are no inline references, there is far too much detail given that this is supposed to be an overview article (do we really need the nitty gritty of Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden's activities?), and the language in places is often very poor ("Immediately Philip's government set up a ministry of the Navy and the Indies and created first a Honduras Company, a Caracas company, the Guipuzcoana Company, and — the most successful one — a Havana Company") or simply inappropriate for an encyclopaedia ("The time for rejoicing in Madrid was short-lived."). Does anyone else agree with me? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 05:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Size and Map of the spanish empire

wow...why is the empire so small?? the spanish empire reached 20 million square miles and OWNED the oregon territory , parts of sotuhwestern canada , parts of Brazil, etc . —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 01:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct map of the Spanish Empire

The current Map is wrong , i think we should change it , i made a new map and im ready to put it up , anyone objects?

thumb|400px

sources : 

         http://pedrocolmenero.googlepages.com/imperiofelipeii.png/imperiofelipeii-full.jpg
         http://www.pais-global.com.ar/mapas/mapa40.htm
         http://www.elhistoriador.es/imperioespanol.htm  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 
         http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d9/Iberian_Union_Empires.png
         http://alerce.pntic.mec.es/lsam0005/2bach_historia/imagenes/imperio_felipe2.jpg
         http://redul.wikispaces.com/file/view/2BacHisT08mapa-virreinatos01.png  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EuroHistoryTeacher (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC) 
         http://www.elgrancapitan.org/portal/images/stories/ter9.gif
         http://www.gomezalvarezgomez.com/au09.jpg

--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I object, for these reasons (with reliable sources) [19] Your collection of sources appears to be self-published or Wikipedia websites, which are not reliable sources. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont think all of them are "self-published" or "wikipedia websites" (??) . Well what changes will you want to make to the map i made? because we NEED to change the current map fast , is too biased and shows the Spanish Empire size IN MODERN-DAY BORDERS terms .Also nobody is claiming that portuguese colonies were incorporated in the Spanish Empire , i think we should write in between parenthesis or apart , for example : "In Pink portuguese territories governed by Spanish kings 1580-1640" , or something like that , of course a little more elaborated . The article needs reform and fast as possible --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

If you want to correct the borders of the parts ruled by Spain, that's fine, noone will object to that. If you want to suggest that the Spanish Empire contained Brazil or Goa, that is not fine. The caption already mentions the Iberian Union, that is enough. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

when you say "If you want to suggest that the Spanish Empire contained Brazil or Goa, that is not fine." i don't think you understand the "Brazil" part , Brazil as a colony belonged to Spanish kings for 60 years , however , PARTS OF MODERN-DAY BRAZIL belonged to spanish kings for centuries!http://alerce.pntic.mec.es/lsam0005/2bach_historia/imagenes/imperio_felipe2.jpg

can i have a go at the map in the article for 5 minutes to see how it would look , if you dont like it "O Highness" i'll change it later , ok?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, as I wrote above "if you want to correct the borders of the parts ruled by Spain, that's fine, noone will object to that." (This applies to the borders in South America.) However, as someone who professes to have a degree in this subject and scorns others for not having one (or assuming that they do not have one), I would have thought that you would be able to provide references in the form of books rather than websites you googled. Finally, I will continue to vehemently disagree with any inclusion of the Portuguese Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Almost half of modern-day Brazil belonged to Spanish Kings , so if i chage it , you WON'T have a problem? wow thats a first :) i think portuguese colonies should be included just as european territories are , because those euro lands didnt form a "spanish state" and neither did portuguese colonies...or aragonese mediterranen lands... its very hard to define Spain as a nation in the 15/16th century , it was rather seen as a multi-national enterprise , where lands were like private possessions of the Kings , just like Belgian Congo was to Leopold . Can you explain from your point of view why portuguese colonies should NOT be included , while aragonese or hasburg european territory (outside of Castille) is ? Castille was the axis of the empire , yet many other lands belonged to Aragon or Hasburg Kings and they are still included in the map , so why shouldnt portguese colonies be? . I think this is pure foolishness .

One more thing , how do i put sections of the history books in the screen so you can see it? i dont think such thing was invented yet , so all i can show you is internet stuff , and the book list in wikipedia is something i haven't looked at and dont understand... --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You simply reference the book where you got the information from. Often times, one can view the contents directly at books.google.com or www.amazon.com. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks for the info Ferrick , now back again to the topic , can you answer my question (as specified above) please?

Can you explain from your point of view why portuguese colonies should NOT be included , while aragonese or hasburg european territory (outside of Castille) are ? Castille was the axis of the empire , yet many other lands belonged to Aragon or Hasburg Kings and they are still included in the map , so why shouldnt portguese colonies be? --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I have already outlined my position several months ago and pointed you to it above [20]. In summary, (1) this is an article on the Spanish Empire, not "the set of territories ever ruled over by Spanish kings" (2) the map of the Iberian Union is already in the article. Furthermore, the amount of attention that this maps gets is ridiculous. The article itself is a complete and utter mess and needs serious cleanup. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
ps read Encarta's article on the Spanish Empire. Doesn't even mention Portuguese colonies. [21] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:18, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok you might not understand something , the phrase "Spanish Empire" in its pure version is something extremely hard to define , if you want to put it in that case , then the Spanish "Empire" in fact wouldnt exist , Empire wasnt used back then to refer to oversea territories , they saw themselves as KINGDOMS not Empires...

http://books.google.com/books?id=V1RIINMb-PAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=How+Spain+became+a+world+power+1492-1763#PPR13,M1

the pics show big chunks of Brazil being part of the Audiencia de Quito and the 3 small countries of Guyana , suriname and french guyana as being part of the Audiencia of Santa Fe , both which were part of the Vice Royalty of Peru

we NEED to include portuguese colonies , otherwise if we dont , we shouldn't show the Castillian american lands , the aragonese mediterranean lands and hasburg inheritance of Charles V HRE , (Carlos I of Spain) , because they weren't incorporated into a "spanish empire" --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Your arguments are original research. The only thing we "need" to do is ensure that all material added is verifiable, and I have already outlined many reliable sources (not websites I googled) that do not consider Portuguese colonies to be Spanish from 1580-1640. I'm not going to get into another round of arguments on this with you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No is NOT original research as much as you want to put my arguements down , it is not . No historian considers portuguese colonies from the period 1580-1640 to be spanish or to be incoorporated into a "spanish state" (which didn't exist)and that is what i also believe . Portugal remained a separate state (with its respective colonies/territories) just as Castille or Aragon remained with theirs , the only thing all of them had in common was that they were ruled by a SINGLE MONARCH , so not including Portugal and its empire , would be contradictory , the "Spanish Empire" ("spanish" is nothing but a name ) consisted of Portugal/Castille/Aragon (portugal for a shorter period) and their territories/colonies AS WELL as the Hasburg private possesions like the Low countries and Italian states do you understand ? you seem like a serious hispanophobe , no insult inttended --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:58, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

A hispanophobe you say? That must mean I hate half my family, as I am half Spanish. As for your "logic" about being ruled by a single monarch, Great Britain and Hanover were ruled by single monarchs, but no historian considers Hanover a part of the British Empire. It was a personal union. It seems like we are mostly in agreement, but I maintain the view that the Habsburg Empire does not equate to the Spanish Empire. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 19:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, I swear solemnly that EuroHistoryTeacher and myself are not the same person. :-)
Secondly, Can someone explain to of Pat Ferrick the difference between the personal union and the royal union (dynastic union), aeque principaliter?. I already demonstrated with references that England and Scotland is not a case similar to that of Portugal. Again, I find another inappropriate example such Great Britain-Hannover (1714-1837), it is obvious that it was a personal union, since there was neither institutions nor common administration, but in case of Portugal, it was integrated in the organizational framework of the Spanish monarchy, and so, there was a State council for the whole Monarchy, a territorial Council of Portugal together with the Councils of Aragon, Castile, Flanders, Italy, the Indies, but where was the Council of Spain?. Here you are, the dictamen sobre el título "Príncipe de Gerona" by es:Juan Ferrara Badía, wich it clarifies what is a personal union and a royal union (dynastic union). I will not worry to translate it because neither the Spanish half nor the English half will read it.
Finally, I would only remember that I have contributed with sources which refuted Pat Ferrick's (et alterum) viewpoint, and some of that sources are based on primary sources of the epoch (XVI-XVIIth centuries), I highlighted and revealed the gaps in the opposite viewpoint and I have responded and provided evidence to the challenges and objections raised by the opposing party. I need not the reply to this message, simply it is a reminder, since in fact I have not received a serious reasoned and argued response, only false accusations and prattles; someone should read Wikipedia:Etiquette. Well, I will wait until The Ogre produces his proposed map. Trasamundo (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pat Ferrick , hispanophobe doens't only means that you "hate" hispanics or hispanic culture and history , you can dislike it , or try to put it down , which it looks to me what you are trying to do in this case . Yes im sure your family is half spanish .

Anyways , you HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS , there was no such a things as a "Spanish Empire" before 1768 , after this date it was organized into a formal empire , by this time however , the hasburg european territories ,the aragonese european territories , etc were a thing of the past...

The Castillian lands , the aragonese lands and the hasburg inheritance in europe didnt became part of a "spanish state" , the same about Portugal and its colonies , it DIDN'T became part of Castille or Aragon.

The Spanish Empire before 1768 , was a multi-national enterprise , lands all over the world belonged to a single monarch but were from different crowns , ie. Peru to Castille , Naples to Aragon , India Goa to portugal , low countries and Milan to Hasburgs , but they weren't incoorporated into a single state , rather it worked like a confederacy , how many times am i going to explain this to you?! do you not understand? this portuguese inheritance is unique , not comparable to Hannover and UK or Scotland and England ... think more logically Pat Ferrick--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests to "think more logically" just demonstrate to me that you do not understand the core Wikipedia policies of NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH and VERIFIABILITY. You claim the Spanish Empire did not exist before 1768. It doesn't matter two hoots what you think, it's what reliable sources say. For example, in the "Spanish Empire" entry of [The Historical Dictionary of European Imperialism http://books.google.com/books?id=uyqepNdgUWkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historical+Dictionary+of+European+Imperialism#PPA581,M1] it says "Although the Kingdom of Castile reached the Canary Islands in 1402, the real beginnings of the Spanish Empire did not come until 1492..." I note you are a new contributor to Wikipedia, you need to understand the policies. So please read them - now. Arguments from logic are not acceptable. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

haha you know what the funny thing is ? altough you are telling me that this is "original research or my thoughts" im getting some details from the Spanish Empire article of the Spanish section! ,[1]

its not what IM thinking , its the FACTS! the very same facts which you seem to not know of or try to put away!

Be reasonable and think logically this will let you write better and let you ACCEPT the real history, i seriously dispute your neutrality and this is a rule of wikipedia , be neutral!, like you said : wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit , but not everyone should--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just ranting. Please read Wikipedia's policies: the fact that the Spanish Wikipedia says one thing is neither here nor there. Wikipedia articles (in any language) are not admissable as a reference for other Wikipedia articles. Otherwise, the verifiability would be circular. I've been editing Wikipedia for several years now and I am fully aware of the policies. You, on the other hand, are clearly not aware. So please take a moment to read them - WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR - and remember that Wikipedia is not an extension of the school you just graduated from, where you are free to come to your own conclusions in the papers that you write. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

yes but the information im getting from the spanish empire article in spanish has veriafable sources , and they are in spanish which i'll translate to you for free (lol) : "En 1768 el informe de Croix habla de "uniformar el gobierno de estas grandes colonias con el de su metrópoli". Siendo el primer documento conocido que redefine los reinos de "Indias" como "colonias"."

This piece of text is basically saying to organize the overseas territories in a colonial way. This is what an empire is , the lands from 1492-1768 weren't , so portuguese colonies should be included if Aragonese , or Hasburg inheritance lands are --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

ok what about this map then : thumb|400px An anachronous map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1975). Red - actual possessions; Pink - explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty .

I'll put it up because i think (as backed by my sources) that it is very correct and accurate--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a TINY trouble uploading this file into the Spanish Empire Article , but now i think i figured out and the new map is shown , i hope i didnt mess anything up :)--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

OK! now i have a BIG problem! im trying to upload the image where it shows Hawaii as sphere of influence but not the azores and madeiras islands which were portuguese ! but i dont know how to do it, im so fu***ng frustrated ! can anybody help? this is the right image : thumb|400px--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 04:21, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the position of user Red Hat is unacceptable. Anyone knows, anyone with some good knowlegde of History that the position of Europeanhistoryteacher is right. Secondly he is provinding sources. The obsession of Red Hat with this article and his attempts can be classified as Sophistry. Sophistry is one of the worst things in Wiki, the manipulation of language and concepts to obscure things. The repeated attempts at saying that Portugal was never under Spanish Rule is absurd (whatever name we want to give to it, kingdom, personal union, empire, whatever), the attempts at trying to say that Portugal was under Spanish rule but not the rest of its territory or colonies at the time is even more ridiculous. I support Eurohistoryteacher and think user the REd Hat is more than biased and a lot of users have already discussed the same issue with him, showing their disagreement. So, who is this guy, the owner of this article?. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.116 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

infoBox?

why don't we add a infobox again ? it can be very helpful for the reader and it gives the article more sense of cleaness in my view , so why not ? here is a start

Spanish Empire
Imperio Español
1492–1975
CapitalToledo (1492-1561) Madrid (1561-1601) Valladolid (1601-1606) Madrid (1606- )
Common languagesSpanish, Portuguese, German, French, Dutch
Religion
Roman Catholic
GovernmentMonarchy
Monarch 
• 1516-1556
Charles I
• 1886-1898
Alfonso XIII¹
Regent 
• 1886-1898
Maria Christina
History 
1492
• Conquest of the Aztec Empire
1519-1521
• Conquest of the Inca Empire
1532–1537
1975
CurrencySpanish Dollar, Real, Escudo
ISO 3166 codeES

--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that an Infobox should be included. Also, I think the last version of the map is much better than the previous one (It was wrong and confusing to have the "European" territories in a different color). Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.4.20.100 (talk) 11:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

The first Global Empire was Portugal.

In 1500-1501 - the first one in 4(or 5) Continents and with the first Establishments in the Moluccas, Ceram and Banda Islands in 1512-1513 the first in 5(or 6) Continents - in fact already in the Australian continental plate, and proclaiming nominal domain on the west Papua(New Guinea) in 1526. And the first in some subcontinents.

Let us respect the truth and History.

Of course Spain and Portugal joined of 1580 to 1640 had formed wider a double global empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.173.196 (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly i would say Portugal wasn't the first global empire, first Portuga was more of a entrepreneur and not a colonial empire unlike Spain , also Portugal armies and navies werent as strog as the ones of Spain , another thing , Spain had the first GLOBAL currency and unlike Portugal it was the first to acquire real territories , Portugal just had small forts along the coasts of the land they "conquered", greetings--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 20:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong Portuagl had entire dominion

In my opinion the position of user Red Hat is unacceptable. Anyone knows, anyone with some good knowlegde of History that the position of Europeanhistoryteacher is right. Secondly he is provinding sources. The obsession of Red Hat with this article and his attempts can be classified as Sophistry. Sophistry is one of the worst things in Wiki, the manipulation of language and concepts to obscure things. The repeated attempts at saying that Portugal was never under Spanish Rule is absurd (whatever name we want to give to it, kingdom, personal union, empire, whatever), the attempts at trying to say that Portugal was under Spanish rule but not the rest of its territory or colonies at the time is even more ridiculous. I support Eurohistoryteacher and think user the REd Hat is more than biased and a lot of users have already discussed the same issue with him, showing their disagreement. So, who is this guy, the owner of this article?. Jan.
"Jan" no disrespect to anybody specifically Ferrick, but some users tend to see the article as their own , which is clearly against wikipedia rules , in reality wikipedia is a place where anyone can edit in a freely manner (with sources of course) without opposition as the kind that Ferrick is showing here , for more information own .--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't think I own this article - I hardly wrote any of it, in fact. I'm just trying to make sure that all changes to it are verifiable, which your changes to the map were not, because you have still have provided absolutely no references for it. Anyway, time will tell if you are a sockpuppeteer - I've requested a check on you. If I'm wrong, then I will of course apologise. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

oh really a check on me? we should have made a bet on that! anyways Ferrick you might as well apologize right now , im not a "sockpuppet" --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

There is clearly sockpuppetry going on at this article talk page. I would just like to point out that this is against Wikipedia policy, and anyone who engages in it will get blocked, and ultimately banned. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

The only one that should be blocked is you. I have nothing to do with other users in this discussion page, so watch your language and prove things before you accuse others. Your dictatorial approach is unacceptable. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.116 (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jan here , we need somebody else instead of Ferrick here , someone more lenient and who has a little more insight into this subject , one question is there anyway to replace or ask for another admin for Red Hat Ferrick?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 17:55, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

User Red Hat continues threatening people. He should be stopped or reported. I will not engange anymore in any type of edit war. I bet that he will do. I encourage other users to keep an eye on this guy. My position is already clear. Support Euroteacher. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.8.187.116 (talk) 01:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Ferrick in case you want to blame me again for sock puppetry , save your words its not me , not even this time or the first time ok? thank you very much!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

"A little more insight"? No personal attacks please. ("Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done."). The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:00, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Aren't you are admin of something? you are the only one blocking the release of the correct information on the SE article . yes people come and go because after a while they get tired of discussing with you and just leave , you are clearly a hispanophobe no doubt about that , you just can't accept the facts , im not going to waste my time explaining this subject (which i clearly dominate over you), i think you are the kind of person who's hobby is to read books about this topic and now you think you own the TRUTH , well..not exactly friend , you are not the only one who knows about this , and you should be more open to other's opinion and facts .im done arguing with you , i read the many correct sources people has given you over the past months and you dont want to accept them , well what can i say? remember the neutral point of view ok? bye --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher, the sources that you claim to be "correct" may be "correct" by your point of view, but not to the point of view of others who have also provided sources against your claims. XPTO (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Disputed Tag for Map/Global Empires

The map which has stood for over a year has been altered without any references provided. As I would be violating the 3RR rule I will not attempt to revert it any more tonight. If no references are forthcoming, I will raise the matter on the original research noticeboard.

Problems with the map (there may be more, this is just my observation):

  • Nagasaki/Deshima is marked as a Spanish colony - it was not.
  • Sabah is marked as a Spanish colony - it was not.
  • Hawaii, a large portion of Cambodia, Hainan Island, parts of Borneo and New Guinea, are marked as "explorations, areas of influence and trade and claims of sovereignty or very short-held territory". Apart from being an overly broad category, these claims are highly dubious.

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Nagasaki/Deshima : the spanish Jesuit missions , established themselves in Nagasaki converting many japanese into christians , but yes you are right this was not a spanish colony by fact , i will definitely change that , thanks for pointing it out .
Sabah : The spaniards builded many forts in Sabah and immense trade was going there , especially after Portugal became part of Phillip's II dominion .
Hawaii : these archipelagos were discovered to the western world by the spanish explorer Lobo and the spaniards sometimes would stop on their way to Manila in Hawaii and trade with them .
Cambodia : in the 1860's a Franco-Spanish expedition landed in Cambodia/Southern Vietnam to punish the Kingdom there for mistreating christian converts , the spaniards were so satistified with the treaty that abolish the mistreament of converts , that they demanded no land (unlike the french) , also in previous centuries many spanish conquistadors landed there and explored it or to reach chinese cities on the north .
Borneo/New Guinea : the spanish builded forts and bases there as a "pit stop" from the american mainland to Asia , most notably the Philippines and from there on to China .
im going to give you sources in a little just wait please , thank you --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Regarding sources, you need to provide maps in reliable sources to demonstrate that this is not your own original research. It's not up to you to decide what constitutes a claim, a sphere of influence, or an area of trade and then colour in a particular area of the map. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:27, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

ahh...Ferrick im not the one deciding what parts to color! im going to show you maps ! just wait please be patient, also read about the Castille War here is one source http://es.geocities.com/coloniasesp/ --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

They must be reliable sources. This means no self-published websites (ie personal websites that someone just uploaded themselves to the internet) and no Wikipedia maps, in any language (wikipedia is not admissable as a reference for itself). The link you posted above is a self-published website. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:34, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes its self-published...just like wikipedia , except here more people help in publishing it :) facts are facts , if i publish london is the capital of england , thats a fact...and SELF-PUBLISHED , of course there are additional sources to back you up , and im finding sources for you , so just be patient and please stop saying im publishing original research--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Euroteacer shows an excellent knowlegde of what he or she is doing. Keep up your good work. Again, to try and show a map that coincides fully with the present Spanish speaking countries in South America is ridiculous and risible, just to mention one exmaple of the quality of the map that stood before. Jan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.158.66 (talk • contribs)

Why don't you create a login for yourself? You would be taken much more seriously if you did. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 14:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Who says so? Just stick to facts and forget about anything else. Jan.

EuroTeacher, with all respect You write what you want, the truth is another thing and the chronology demonstrates it(of course you are right in major and many things and You know many about these matters, but wrong in others in my view). of course Spain became a more larger and powerful empire as Britain(even more global) after.

So was also Britain the first global empire, with missions-establishments and oficial claims in Antartica?! maybe.

I am talk about of the chronological relative expansion of the empire. Was Portugal, first, chronology(in that sense, not any other). However it may be that the Spanish Empire, with more population and resources and dominios in Europe out of Peninsula (that Portugal did not have beyond its own european Population, territory and Atlantic archipelagoes) and its gradual advance in the North America and is part of Oceania for the half part that fit to it in the treat of Tordesillas/Zaragoza-Elvas etc., became the dominant global force in the second half of XVI century and XVII, by the power in Europe above all, including Portugal for some time in the sphere of the crown of the Habsburgs(maybe this is the first "global" Peninsular empire), maybe for this questions, the Portuguese Empire Edditors (You or others or you and others) don´t have that kind of statement in the first phrase and we understand.

The Indian Ocean was a Portuguese Lake, for a few years yes, but was, as the major part of Atlantic, with 22 cities in west coast of India, more than half Ceylon, Oman(Muscat and all major cities and fortresses in Oman - Arabia Peninsula), Bahrein(Arabian p.), Queshem and Ormuz in Persian coast, part of today Emirates(Arabian Peninsula) and from Brazil to Moluccas, Macau and Deshima enclave,cities in Maylasia, forst in Sumatra and Java. For some years the thalassocracy was total with expeditions to the coasts of the Sinai, against the still incipient but increasing Turkish positions in Egypt(its fleet in particular) and attempts for one year in Basrah(Iraq) etc.

Empire:

EUROPE(EUROPEAN and AFRICAN OCEANIC PLATE) PORTUGAL - Continent; Azores; Madeira(Selvagens)

MOROCCO: Aguz (1506-1525) Alcácer-Ceguer (1458-1550) Arzila (1471-1550, 1577-1589) Azamor (1513-1541) Ceuta (1415-1640) Mazagon (1485-1550, 1556-1769) Mogador (1506-1525) Safim (1488-1541) Agadir (1505-1769) Tanger (1471-1662) Ouadane (1487- midle XVI)

AFRICA(SOUTH OF SAHARA)

ANGOLA (1575-1975) Cabinda-(1883-1975)

ANO BOM (1474-1778)

MAURITANIA: Arguim (1455-1633)

CAPE VERDE(1462-1975)

GANA: São Jorge da Mina (1482-1637) Costa do Ouro (1482-1642) Acra (1557-1578)

FERNANDO PÓ (1478-1778)

GUINEA BISSAU: Guiné Portuguesa (1879-1974)

KENYA: Melinde (1500-1630) Mombaza (1593-1698, 1728-1729)

MOZAMBIQUE (1501-1975)

TANZANIA: Kilwa (1505-1512) Zanzibar (1503-1698)

BENIN: Fortress of São João Baptista de Ajudá (1680-1961) SÃO TOMÉ E PRINCIPE (1753-1975)

SENEGAL: Ziguinchor (1645-1888)

MADAGASCAR(Nominal - One base (but necessary to review the sources)

YEMEN Arq.(ASIA- "near" AFRICA): Socotra (1506-1511)

And more several areas of influence, indirect domain or tributaries Kingdoms in Africa and Asia etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ASIA

ARABIAN Peninsula:

BAHREIN(ARABIAN PENINSULA):

Bahrein and Al Qatif (1521-1602)

OMAN-(ABIAN PENINSULA) (and ARAB EMIRATES):

Muscat(1515-1650) Doba, Libedia, Corfação, Mada and Quelba (1515-1650)

SAUDI ARABIA and U. ARAB EMIRATES:

Khasab, Julfar(1515-1650)

IRAN -PERSIAN Coast:

Hormuz (1515-1622) Comoron (1515-1622) Qeshem (1515-1622) Bandar Abbas (1506-1615)

INDIA:

Laquedives Islands (1498-1545) Baçaím (1535-1739) Bombay (Mumbai) (1534-1661) Calecute (1512-1525) Cananor (1502-1663); Chaul (1521-1740) Chittagong (1528-1666) Cochim (1500-1663) Cranganor (1536-1662) Dadrá e Nagar-Aveli (1779-1954) Daman (1559-1962) Diu (1535-1962) Goa (1510-1962) Hughli (1579-1632) Nagapattinam (1507-1657) Paliacate (1518-1619) Coulan (1502-1661) Salsette (1534-1737) Masulipatão (1598-1610) Mangalore (1568-1659) Surate (1540-1612) Thoothukudi (1548-1658) São Tomé de Meliapore (1523-1662; 1687-1749)

SRY LANKA:

Portuguese CEILON (1518-1658) Half Island, all west to the interior and part of the east.

MALDIVES(1518-1521, 1558-1573)

CHINA:

Macau(1515 - 1557-1999)

JAPAN:

Deshima(Nagasaki)-(1571-1639)

ASIA, AUSTRALASIA and OCEANIA

MALAYSIA:

Malacca(1511-1641)

INDONESIA(and PAPUA):

Forts in Sumatra Flores Island (XVI-XIX) Makassar(1512-1665) Bante (XVI-XVIII) Moluccas(Maluku): (1512 - Discovery - Amboin 1576-1605, Ternate 1522-1575, Tidore 1578-1650)

EAST TIMOR(1642-1975):

Discovery-1512-1517 process of Independence -Indonésia -Timor Timur (1975-1999) "Protectorate" UN(1999-2002)

NORTH AMERICA

CANADA:

Newfoundland Factory(1501--1503) Only Claims of Nominal Possession of LABRADOR and TERRA NOVA by the King (1501-1570) - Terras del Rey de Portugal - Colony established by João Alvares Fagundes(It lasted 3 years after 1521) in Newfoundland.

SOUTH AMERICA

BRAZIL(1500-1822)

BARBADOS- a Factory (1536-1620)

URUGUAY: Nova Colónia do Sacramento (1680-1777) Cisplatine Province (1808-1822) - Ocupation (Expantion of Portuguese Brazil and Empire of Brazil) Change between Portugal and Spain many times. FRENCH GUIANA (1809-1817)Conquest and ocupation.

(to complete)

-Both the Iberian ones had made the deed.

I agree on this one with this user. Therefore I think that "one of the first global empires" is better than "the first global empire", since the role of Portugal was very important too and preceded Spain in the Atlantic voyages around Africa, etc. Anyway, the main problem here, in my opinion, is the map. I support Euroteacher on that one. By the way I do not see the pink colours nor the areas of the Portuguese colonies between 1580 and 1640 that should be also included. Anyway, that´s my two cents. Good luck. Jan.

Yes maybe i agree with you , i think we should put in BOTH articles something like this : "and one of the first global empires" . But look at this , Spain had colonies/territories/lands in the 6 POPULATED continents , yet maybe the Iberian Union , that is to say the incoorporation of the portuguese monarchy and EMPIREinto the spanish one , made Spain (or Portugal maybe) the first global empire. Also let's start thniking about including the portuguese imperial territories into the Spanish map , because this is what happened unlike some other users like Pat Ferrick who engage in sophistry , Portugal even had a SPANISH Viceroy FOR GOD'S SAKE!!--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Euroteacher, the Viceroy (that had to be by law of the royal family or tied, Spanish, Italian etc.) formaly represented the King and his personal authority, government and the Crown of the Habsburgs in the Kingdom, He/She did not represent Castile, nor Aragon nor represented Spain, - and the Castilians, Aragonese(Spanish)Navarrese - or German or other European were forbidden and hindered to occupy Admin. positions in any territory of the Portuguese empire. Of course "Spain" - Spain itself was the major power in 1580-1640.

Note: about the British although Antarctica was also "continent", not populated in those times, maybe. Portugal was the first global in one sense and Spain was the first global in another sense (explanation above) both senses in my -and others I Believe - view.

However it may be that this Iberian or "Hispanic"(old sense of the name) Peninsular Crown(1580-1640) Portugal and Spain was maybe the first globalization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 15:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Spain" in modern sense as official name in a official unitary formal State only exists after 1715 with the Nueva Planta of Felipe V, until this date, Castile, Aragon and Navarra and other States had had its proper borders, proper currency, autonomous Justice and its own sovereignty as Aragon for example (where nor the King or local troops of Castile couldn´t intervine). So it did not had formal representative of Castile or Aragon or Flandres in Portugal between 1580-1640, but of the King.

  1. ^ En 1768 el informe de Croix habla de "uniformar el gobierno de estas grandes colonias con el de su metrópoli". Siendo el primer documento conocido que redefine los reinos de "Indias" como "colonias".
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_2&oldid=1276841267"