This is an archive of past discussions about Spanish Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
"The Empire on which the sun never sets: The Golden Age" is much too long and terribly, terrible clumsy for a subtitle. The original "Sun Never Sets" was short and attention catching. I've left the ":Golden Age" even though this expression is so common in so many different history articles as to be commonplace and boring. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.221.33.141 (talk) 00:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
attention to attempts at silencing other users
Pay attention to the history of the discussion page. User the Red Hat is erasing critical information introduced by other users oin an act of vandalism. I will not engage in an edit war. Just pay attention at what he does. He has erased some comments and a map introduced as a comparison for the double standards used here. Personally I am also starting to think that he and Lord Corwallis are trolls of the same person. anyway his conduct is what should be judged. Look at what he is deleting from the discussion page--JovetheGod (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry what?. You Lord Cornwallis make against me an ad-hominem attack. Im put the map make for Red Hat to prove the affirmation of Double standards.--Resvoluci (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Here the map of British Empire by Red Hat of Pat Ferrick
A good demonstration of why sockpuppetting is a bad idea: User:Cosialscastells has intentionally misled many editors such as myself. This in itself creates a bias against whatever Cosialscastells been arguing for. It has also created a bias against any new editors, anon IP or otherwise, who come to this page and replace the map with an old version. It is very hard to believe these new-appearing editors are not Cosialscastells under some puppet name. It may be that someday some new editor from Madrid will appear with an agenda similar to Cosialscastells's and will find him or herself subjected to unfair bias due to Cosialscastells's actions. This is one of the reasons sockpuppetry is a bad idea. It creates ill-will toward any editors who at all resemble the person who misled in the first place. To Cosialscastells, whose sockpuppets are particularly transparent: Please stop, you are only creating more of the very bias you seem to be objecting to. You claim there is an anti-Spanish historical bias on this page. For myself, I like to think of myself as very pro-Spanish. I have worked hard on many Wikipedia pages to demonstrate the early and expansive power and influence of the Spanish Empire in the Americas. Too often this history is ignored. Yet since I support User:Trasamundo's map you apparently group me into a set of people who are anti-Spanish and pro-British. This makes me wonder whether I am wasting my time here trying to improve the Spanish history of the Americas on Wikipedia. In short, you are undermining your own agenda. As for the British Empire page, it may well be that there it makes a sad comparison with this page on the Spanish Empire. Since my interest is the Spanish Empire and not the British Empire I have spent very little time looking at the British Empire page. I agree that the main map there, when compared to the one here, suggests a maximal and minimal approach. But for me this does not mean that the Spanish Empire map is problematic: rather I find the British Empire page troublesome. Repeatedly restoring the Spanish Empire map does nothing to further my sympathy but rather just the opposite. Finally, while I think the Trasamundo's map is excellent, I find the text on this page in need of much work. It is poorly organized and needs a great deal of copyediting. I have done a little toward that end, but much more remands to be done. A wholesale reorganization of the text would probably be for the best. If nothing else, it is highly Eurocentric, with information about the Americas inserted here and there in sections mainly devoted to European affairs. In any case, while I agree that the comparison of the British and Spanish Empire pages reveal a poor state for Spain and a relatively good one for Britain, I am unconvinced that this has to do with an anti-Spanish bias. Rather I suspect that there are many English speaking editors who are interesting and willing to put work into the British Empire page such that it has become fairly well done, while the Spanish Empire page languishes in relative disinterest. This does not indicate a double standard so much as an indicator of the interests of English-speaking peoples. Repeatedly restoring an old version of the map is a waste of time, as there as numerous editors who will revert such changes. A better use of time would be editing the text of this page. It needs much work! My advice is: forget the map, spend your energy on sometime that might last more than a day. Pfly (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Pfly, one thing is to "put work into the British Empire page" and another is to enhance Britain's achievements in a way that seems far from neutral. Whoever made the point originally about the difference between the Spanish and British Empire maps is right. The differences in style and layout are huge. The Spanish map is ridiculous. I don't know who is Cosialscastells and frankly I don't care. But editors should not go around blocking other editors when their own behaviour is being questioned. In any case, let us return to a more constructive attitude. JCRB (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Cosialscastells, and his various alter egos, were blocked not by any of us, but by Wikipedia's administrators. First for this piece of abuse [2], then for serial sockpuppetry. The only unconstructive attitude here has come from him, pretending to be more than one person to make his view seem more popular than it really is. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
For god' s sake stop using the sockpuppetry issue to avoid the main issue. I am not that Cossialcastels. ?Try and proof it if you can, Red Hat. There are many people here you disagree with you, that is all. I myself suspect that the Red Hat and Lord Corwallis or whatever is the same person, but I may be wrong, so whatever. The main issue is the clear double standard. We all know that in this and in many other subjects cherry picking information we can write very different articles, in this case maps, using as many sources as we want. So, the main issue is the standard. I haved spoken of simple comparisons like Patagonia in the Spanish map, Amazonia in the Portuguese map,Antarctica or the North Pole, in the British map. Just a few examples that clearly show the different standards used. I hope to come to an agreement that is reasonable and honest. I have a busy life and I am leaving you for some time. In case of need, you know that I vote for the map that I have reintroduced several times and that was there before, also after a long discussion. Good luck and I hope that honest views will prevail. --81.33.232.182 (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
On April 18, 2009 I uploaded two maps, one of the British empire claims with names to all the places it claimed throughout its history, and the other was of the Spanish Empire. They are both on wikimedia commons and they are called:
I was successful in adding the British map to the British Empire page, replacing the old one. I feel that these two maps are more accurate and explanatory. I was not able to add the Spanish Empire map to its page because of protection. The map that is currently there is unattractive, does not show the lines of the countries that have been formed because of the empires in our present day of the borders of the territories of Spanish claims. My map on the Spanish Empire lets you see our present day borders shadowed in the back ground and brown lines around the Spanish Territories that existed at certain times in its history. Please try to add this map to the page and replace the map that is there with it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Free the kingdom of tibet (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are a good faith new user rather than another incarnation of one of two map-obsessed editors that have frequented both articles. In both cases, you should engage on the talk page first. This article's choice of map is highly contentious (read talk page history above), and that is why it is protected. The BE is a featured article and went through a lengthy review to get that way, so again you should use the talk page to explain your case. Finally, I don't mean to be rude, but both your maps look extremely amateurish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt18:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I have changed the map to the one suggested by user "Free kingdom of Tibet". It has two colors (not seven) and is much more straightforward. The previous one has caused unnecessary long disputes on this talk page and has proved inappropriate. JCRB (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Per Lord Cornwallis, who reverted this edit, there is no consensus for this change, and the only person who deems it inappropriate, who is not a permanently blocked sockpuppet (Cosialscastells) or a mysteriously registered new user (Tibet) is you. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt22:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me remind Mr. Red Hat that this page does not belong him, or to any one editor or group of editors. There is no consensus for this map. Since it was introduced a few weeks ago, there have been constant messages of criticism, be it by established users or by editors who have not registered, which let me remind you, is also legitimate. The existing map is confusing, messy, and reveals an anti-Spanish bias which is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Please revert it to the previous one or we will need to go to dispute resolution. JCRB (talk) 12:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it is not unanimous, but the majority (myself, Trasamundo, Ogre, LordCornwallis, Pfy) are OK with the current map. It is just you and a series of sock accounts run by permanently blocked user Cosialscastells who are against it. Therefore, consensus is for the current map. You are welcome to take it to dispute resolution if you wish. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt12:27, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Not a user who frequently edits stuff here but it seems strange to present the historic entry of an empire by a map showing how it fell apart. The current map should be further down and a less biased one (showing as the Spanish empire became an empire and was known as an empire at its peak) be used as the opener. Compared to the British map showing all the territory they ever held (regardless of at what point of time and how long) seems fishy. Regards. 84.154.19.131 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Could someone change the map to File:Spanish Empire Anachronous en.svg please? They are the same, but this one is being deleted and would improve the Commons better if it was, (to reduce redundancy and clutter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.115.81 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
wrong information
Hi guys, i find this garbled:
For instance, traditionally, territories such as the Low Countries or Spanish Netherlands were included as they were part of the possessions of the King of Spain, governed by Spanish officials, and defended by Spanish troops. However, authors like the British historian Henry Kamen contend that these territories were never integrated into a Spanish state and instead formed part of the wider Habsburg possessions.
What?
Kamen Argues that the nothern provinces were never integrated to the Spanish State (as we can understand ruled de facto from Madrid) due the cruelty of Alba in the beginning of the revolt. That consecuently caused the Eighty Years' War. (Despite the first stanzza of the dutch national anthem dating from 1568), But the catholic provinces of the south (Spanish Netherlands article ) were definitely integrated to the Spanish State, not only to the Spanish Habsburgs, but to the Spanish Bourbons under Philip V of Spain in 1701 ... Veracruzian (talk) 13:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
So wha?. don't you get it?. This article is dominated by a group whose sole aim is to belittle anything related to the Spanish empire, just read the discussion and to what the pay attention and what they ignore. Kun. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.235.8 (talk) 14:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Semi-protected for another month - I kept this article on my watchlist after the last lot of nonsense, and put the protection in place before I saw this thread; apologies for a wasted RFPP report (I'll head that way now to close it). EyeSerenetalk09:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: Heh, this has all happened backwards. I'm sure you noticed your request was denied, but I think the additional recent activity more than justifies protection so I'm not going to remove it again. I'll leave it at one month though, and we can reinstate as necessary. EyeSerenetalk10:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
I would like to begin reworking this article so that it can get towards GA, and finally FA status, as I did with British Empire. However, this will involve major changes to the article, because it's extremely poorly written, it goes into far too much detail on certain topics, and it strays very far from the manual of style. One major issue I have with the article is the huge discussion of affairs in Europe. This should be cut down to a couple of paragraphs and much more space devoted to events in the overseas colonies. Before I embark on this and get reverted, however, I just want to make sure I have people's support here? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking the article needs something like that for a long time, but have not had the time to make the effort myself. If work like that starts up, I'll do what I can to help. Pfly (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Great. Perhaps we could agree on the main sections? I suggest minor tweaking as follows:
Origins, to 1492, covering the Canaries and the reconquista
1492-1580, covers expansion in the Americas, Philippines, rivalry with Portugal
1580-1640, union with Portugal, struggles with Holland and England
1640-1713, decline, loss of European possessions
1713-1824, Bourbons, Napoleonic invasion, loss of American colonies
1824-1898, remnants in Caribbean, Philippines, loss of Spanish-American war
That looks reasonable to me although I have some large gaps in my knowledge of the history so can hardly comment with authority. The dates nicely match those of the map. The period 1713-1824 is a long one with, as I understand it, a kind of "late flowering" of empire under the Bourbons followed by the wars of independence in the Americas, some of which went on for quite some time. Depending on how much material there is it might make sense to split into two sections, one on the recovery and one on the losses. Just a thought--obviously the sectioning should more or less match the amount of text. Since my main area of interest is North American based the 1713-1824 dates looked quite broad--quite a lot happened during this time! But I suppose that could be said for the other eras too, in different places. The trick I guess to writing about such vast topics is keeping things reasonably terse yet comprehensive. Anyway, I will dig out my books that relate to the topic. Do you think the existing text can be largely salvaged, or are you thinking of rewriting most of it? Also, I'm curious what other editors here think about all this. Hopefully the usuals will weigh in. Pfly (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with what is improving and expanding, and in addition WP: PRESERVE makes sense to me. I also want to ponder about the approach and the problems, and here I meet the disparity between the history of Spain (properly the peninsular metropolis), regarding to the history of its territories, and for example, in History of Spain the Iberian Union is not a special separate chapter, but such issue about the Iberian Union may deserve a separate chapter from the perspective of the overseas territories (if the references agree with this commentary). Also I think that in spite of the fact that without an ultramarine empire it is not possible be a Spanish empire, also I must say that Spain as a international power was orientated to Europe, while the overseas territories were lagging behind what happened in Europe, I want to emphasize that European affairs were part of the history of the Spanish empire, and adding content about events in the overseas colonies is not exclusive with affairs in Europe, I think that the Spanish dynamics in Europe is also dynamic of the Spanish empire, with what we have that the Spanish empire was including so much both the European as ultramarine territories, [4] something that I wanted to comment before cutting down the paragraphs. I also think that the division into chapters is accurate with the historical processes and, although initially are broad, I guess that it will have more specific subsections. Trasamundo (talk) 00:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, European affairs should be covered. Simply not to the huge depth that they are now. When attempting to summarise centuries of global history, one has to touch on many events and themes, and it is impossible to do any of them justice. But that's OK, because encyclopaedias aren't books, they are summaries. So while we can WP:PRESERVE discussion of Spain in Europe, we are going to have to junk a lot of the detail. There's no way around that, if we want to get to FA status. We can copy and paste the text into a new child article, if preserving the content is a concern. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt11:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That's true. What I want is to show the difficulty of the approach, imagine that you discard to lot of the detail, and another user comes and says that he expects to see this material in the article because it is important and referenced, and so, it begins a discussion or a edit war, but if in the introduction the focus is explained, and in the sections they are added templates as Template:See also or Template:Main, then it would help something to avoid such misunderstandings. With this, I want to show that probably the labor of modifying of the article Spanish empire also concerns the article History of Spain, regarding the transfer of contents, linking and complementing them between different articles, for example, inside the article History of Spain, we find the link to the article Habsburg Spain where you can find its similarities with the current editing of the Spanish empire. In this way, before eliminating contents it would suit transfer them to another existent article and to establish some type of link to find them easily. Trasamundo (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
That map is a masterpiece! trasamundo señor you are the new Velasquez! Beautiful map with seven shades that please the eye and I also love how small the territories of empire are shown! good job trasamundo, keep it up! -Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.48.118.23 (talk) 05:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Whig History prime
No mention whatsoever of genocide, plunder and squander of the greatest silver and gold mines in the world or the abusive treatment of Indians in ocupied lands. Bravo!. Please aply it to other pages, such as Nazi Germany, the Rwandan genocide or the current Sudanese genocide. (btw, LOVE that legacy section, it's cutesy how naive it is)--99.192.61.125 (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you could start with the US too. I wonder why most people of Amerindian ancestry actually live or come from Hispanic America? Were they not supposed to have disappeared under the evil Spanish. How come they indeed disappeared in the US or Canada? How come Amerindians and Mestizos make up 90% of the population of Mexico and they are almost extinguished in the US, if Hispanics do not count? History is very funny, right?. How much cheap anti Spanich propaganda! Move on, it is becoming outdated! I would like to hear of an empire that did not impose itself with violence, especially half a millenium ago. If you know of one, please tell me. Bambo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.77.193 (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
You're totally right. The Black Legend has done a lot of harm when mixed with uncultured people. And nowadays, a lot of this propaganda comes from some Amerindian people who just don't realize that if other european nation would have arrived (let's say, England of France), they couldn't complain because they just wouldn't exist (let's say, as in USA or Canada). Please, stop this childish reactions. We're all grown up people, the English don't bark about the vikings invasions and pillage to Denmark/Norway, the Spaniards don't complain to Italy about the roman conquer and the systematic plunder of Spain's silver mines. Have some sense of dignity please.--Infinauta (talk) 14:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This really isn't the place for a general discussion on the Spanish Empire. If people have specific suggestions for improving the article please could they make them. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
An editor is repeatedly making this edit which apart from being extremely poor English, is splitting hairs to a ridiculous degree (yes, it was technically Castile, but English language historians commonly use the term "Spain" after 1492). Does anyone feel that the edits should stand? The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt21:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been following this edit-obssesion, he's been wandering here for days just changing that. I don't think his edits should stand, there was a consensus already reached before his arrival. Anyway, I've told him to discuss the issue here if he's willing.--Infinauta (talk) 22:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I suggest balancing exactitude with fluency: using Castile or Catholic kings in official claims/events, then using Spanish people, interests, etc. (Notice in this article "According to Henry Kamen, Spain was created by the Empire, rather than the Empire being created by Spain.")
The Spanish Wikipedia refers to the "Reyes Católicos", stating clearly the exact parts involved in official issues like signing a treaty: "Se conoce como Tratado de Tordesillas el compromiso suscrito en Tordesillas el 7 de junio de 1494 entre Isabel y Fernando, reyes de Castilla y Aragón, y Juan II rey de Portugal "
The experts balance it like this:
Boxer, Charles Ralph (1969). The Portuguese Seaborne Empire 1415–1825. p.229-30 - "...the undiscovered worlds had been, in effect, divided between the Crowns of Portugal and Castile by the Treaty of Tordesillas" then simplifies, using "spanish America, Spanish missionaries, etc.
Diffie, Bailey (1977). Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580. p.172 - "The arrival of Columbus liberated Castile from he narrow strip of sea....Suddenly, in the seas in which Portugal had had no rival, it was faced with Spanish claims."
p.283-refers to Spain in simplified chronology of Tordesillas; refers to the "John III...insisted with Catholic kings when the Tordesillas treaty was being worked out. When the Spanish balked, João garrisoned the border forts" (Catholic kings then Spanish interests, Spanish people: and I do prefer "Catholic kings" to "Monarchs", which sounds pretentious). Hope it helps,--Uxbona (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this sounds to be both idiomatic and workable. The lead of our article on Isabella I gives a very precise summary, in which it asserts that Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was the first ruler of unified Spain. Since we are an encyclopedia, we should aspire to do well on such things as the dates, titles and authority of the various kings and queens. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This article on Spanish Empire should include a cross-link to the 1573 Laws of the Indies (wiki entry), preferably at the end of section 3.3 discussing the apogee of the Spanish empire under Philip II. In particular, this should mention the Laws of the Indies codification of new city planning, the first attempt to abstract principles of urban design (without a given site) since Vitruvius. This aspect of the laws is not evident from the indigenous related laws cited in the article (Burgos and the New Laws).--My4lane (talk) 14:56, 23 September 2009 (AEST)
One-color Map
As explained in previous messages, the current multi-color map is inappropriate. It seems to describe the Spanish Empire as many individual states or kingdoms, separate from each other. This is obviously wrong. The previous version of the map should be inserted, with one color for all territories once belonging to Spain or her monarchy. This is how it's done in all other "Empire" maps, for example the British Empire, the French Empire, the Portuguese Empire, the Dutch Empire, the German Empire, the Japanese Empire, the Italian Empire and others. There is no reason why the Spanish Empire should be different. JCRB (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh my god, don't start up the map argument again. The current map is fine. Instead of making people waste time arguing about it, why don't you work on cleaning up the article? It's an absolute mess. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt03:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I beg your pardon, but I will put forth my opinions as often as I wish. The current map is messy and inappropriate and I have explained the reasons why. JCRB (talk) 00:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
---
Well, then be careful with The Red Hat. He has already shown to be one little Wiki-dictator, famous anti Spanish user and even more famous British propagandist. By the way. Do you see the British Empire map? Including part of Antartica, etc, and the Spanish one missing Patagonia etc. What a shame, this is outrageous and shameful. What a pity for this Encyclo. Just cheap Brit propaganda. Joshe.
Hello propagandist. If you want to insist on anyone who is not in agreement with you Cosiadestels, OK. Your attitude speaks for itself. Anyway, there is my two cents. I have a life and I am not embarked on any propaganda crusade. Goodbye. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.156.224 (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
I find this map better and more informative than the maps of other empires on Wikipedia. Rather than degrading this one to the standard of those maps, I would rather see those maps brought up to the level of this map. Pfly (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Guess what is going to happen? With that argument this map is going to stay like this and all the others like that. Is that not a double standard?. Sure it is not. Juanito. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.156.224 (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
As far as I see it, the "standard" is that which is followed by the majority. All other maps use one color. A single color is the standard. Why do you insist that the Spanish map look like a rainbow? Indeed, some editors have double standards. JCRB (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the map provides redundant info. The main map should be used to show the extent of the empire, not when every single colony became independent. That dates can be found in the article and in other multiple articles, it only makes it imposible to understand, it would be easier to understand with 3 colours at much (to distinguish spain, portugal, and claimed but not controlled areas). Like in this one:
I'm not against the idea of using a simpler map for the lead infobox, with Trasamundo's map being placed somewhere in the main article, perhaps larger in size. The example map shown above has some problems though. It shows too many areas in "red" that ought to be "pink" or blank. Also I have a problem with the whole idea of mapping "claims" (as discussed at great length earlier on this talk page) But here's an alternate idea: I would be willing to make a simple 2 color map for the infobox based on Trasamundo's map, if everyone here would approve and want it. Red for Spanish possessions and some other color for Portuguese. I wouldn't try to map "claims", excepting those widely recognized by other nations, like Louisiana--exactly as in Trasamundo's map, but with just two colors and no map text. The current map would be placed in the article somewhere. Would everyone be satisfied with that? Pfly (talk) 07:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
In fact, no. The map we have now, the result of a long discussion process I might add, is one of the best I have seen, and all other empire maps should live up to this standart! Reviving this whole issue again is just an attempt by well known POV editors who basically just want to paint the world in Spanish colours. Leave it as it is
Just a little note. This is what the introdutcion states. "Later expeditions established an empire that stretched from present-day Canada in North America to Tierra del Fuego in South America". As you know, Tierra del Fuego is the southernmost tip in south american mainland. But in the map, this zone is vanished from the empire. Patagonia was ofically part of the empire. When Argentina and Chile became independent, they automatically owned those territories, and respected the borders oficially stablished during the empire. It was not claimed by France or Britain. There were several spnish setlements there (not even one british or french setlement). It should be light red, because indigenous tribes there were never loyal to the empire. But if you completely vanish Tierra del Fuego from the empire, I should begin vanishing territories from British empire like Iraq (never fully controlled), Antartica. The portuguese map by this standard will have to suffer serious modification, vanishing most of the coloured zones. The French map also, vanishing indian territories. The dutch also, as lots of the islands claimed were not even discovered until later
The text needs a lot of work. Spain claimed Patagonia but it was never really occupied. Argentina and Chile acquired the Spanish claim, but it took a long time for the region to be conquered and subjected to the governments of Argentina and Chile. The Spanish Empire map does not show "claims" like Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego. The article's text is in great need of improvement. The claim of "an empire that stretched from present-day Canada in North America to Tierra del Fuego in South America" is just one example of a problem with the text. I do agree that the British Empire maps should be improved. For example: the Canadian arctic was never really occupied and its inhabitants were never really subjects of Britain. Like I wrote above, the map on this page is the best of all the Wikipedia "empire" maps, in my opinion. Pfly (talk) 20:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, it is interesting to see that the problem with the map isn't that it has too many colors or is confusing, as has been said, but that it does not show enough territory as Spanish. Pfly (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Well I was trying to convert the existing map to a 2 coloured one but I dont have the appropiate photoshop. Maybe you can show me where to download one, I would thank that vry much. Actually there are two main problems with the map, the first and most important is that it shows too many colours making very difficult to distinguish spain, portugal or whatever, the second is that the british wikipedia, sorry, the english wikipedia, can be said to follow double standards in this case, because every single empire I've seen apart from spanish shows "claimed but not controlled territory". In most cases, it doesnt even use another colour to distinguish it from fully controlled areas. Note that the British empire talk page has had multiple discussions on this subject and has never removed a part of the map, not even considered using another colour to make clear it was only a claim, not a real involvement in the area, like was the case of Iraq, north pole, antartica, australian dessert, african desert. All of this areas were only de jure parts of the empire. The same as Patagonia in this case. The funniest part of the subject is that The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick and company in the british empire talk page are not talking about "removing" or making this things clear, they are talking about ¡¿including more?! parts into the british map. Sorry, but I can only laugh against so much british bias. Enriquegoni (talk) 00:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I had to remove the British Empire page from my watchlist. I couldn't take the endless arguments about the term "British Isles". And anyway, I'm not very knowledgeable or interested in the British Empire. I can't really help you there. Photoshop can't be legally downloaded for free, but you could try GIMP. I might find time to do it myself, but I'm so busy I can't make promises. Oh, and btw, there is at least one other multi-colored empire map: Ottoman Empire. Pfly (talk) 09:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Siena
I attend without surprise at the umpteenth repetition of a map with colors is confusing or said otherwise, only a color-blind can understand maps. If someone wants to see the real extension of the Spanish empire then it is so simple as seeing all the colored areas. It's a good job that there are more people who still want to have more information than a bi/monochrome mute map.
I ignore what encyclopaedic criterion is to establish how the others make it badly then I will do it also. If the criterion is as it appears so in an article, then here also, however, that is contrary to wikipedia policy as we read in WP:CIRCULAR. Well I can affirm that to make this map I had to trace sources, even about international law, without drawing on either on beliefs or suppositions and without worrying which are the borders of other maps, especially when the technical means that could arrange Spain or Portugal between the 16th-18th centuries to control and to administer territories were worst than those France or UK could arrange between the 19th-20th centuries.
How my mind is to offer a well-referenced map, I have received suggestions about Minorca and Sienna. As Minorca was lost during the period of the treaty of Utrecht, I should reflect it with its pink color, and since nowadays it is a Spanish territory, I should put the island with a double color. I know that someone will say to me that it is confusing, but imagine that someone who does not know anything (or know little) about history of Spain, when he sees a double color, he will estimate with a glimpse that in Minorca occurred something in its history, whereas a monocolor map does not offer any additional information at all.
Meanwhile, Siena turns out to be a bit more confused for me, and because of it, I open this post, if it should be necessary to include it. The references indicate that due to the revolt of Siena:
Charles V declared that state forfeited by rebellion to the imperial crown and forthwith invested Prince Philip, or the King of England as he was then denominated [5]
Philip had also received a transference of the rights of the emperor over Siena as soon the republic had been recaptured from the French [...] substitute for the emperor in his suzerainty over Siena. [6]
Shortly afterwards his father granted to him the vicariate of the republic of Siena, when it should be conquered [...] and in Siena Philip was his father's substitute, cliaming suzerainty over the republic by virtue of force [7]
Between 1555 and 1557 Siena itself had been governed by Philip II of Spain [8]. However, the source called La República de Siena y su anexión a la corona de España (The Republic of Siena and its annexation to the Crown of Spain) indicates that the Emperor Charles V named Francisco de Toledo as imperial lieutenant and governor of Siena [9], and after his death the Emperor appoints as governor the archbishop of Burgos, Francisco de Mendoza y Cañete [10]. However, after the abdication of Charles V, issues of Siena concerned to Philip II as king of Spain [11] but not to the Emperor. Here is the fundamental point, in spite of being a representative of the Empire, nevertheless, the government of Siena depends on the directives and Spanish interests, as in Milan. In my opinion if Philip II, had not yielded Siena to Florence, it had followed a similar fate to Milan.
In 1557, Philip II gave up to Cosimo de Medici the state and city of Siena as a fief of the Spanish crown[12] and in the surrender of the Sienese republic of Montalcino (1559) did it to Philip II as lord paramount[13] indeed to his representative Juan de Guevara, and this one to Niccolini, deputy of Cosimo [14]
Cosimo's right to the city as a feudal holding was confirmed by Emperor Ferdinand on 9 September 1560. [15]
I believe that the references show that during a brief period, Philip II as king of Spain, not as prince, arbitrated and directed issues of Siena as part of his Italian policy, whereas the sources do not mention anything about the government of Ferdinand of Habsburg, then King of the Romans, in Siena until 1560 (then emperor). Therefore Siena should be included in the map. Trasamundo (talk) 12:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
No mention of Spanish Viceroys and Viceroyalties in other English Wiki articles
Well, this is the only english-wiki article which has some elaborated info on that subject, so I consider that there are some people around here that might be interested in, and be capable of, adressing the subject where (IMHO) it might be needed to do it. IANVS (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thamks, I knew. I was just surprised not to see any reference to Spanish Viceroys under the Viceroy main article or under its disamiguation. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 01:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Patagonian stablishments
I think that the coast of the Argentnian Patagonia should be included on the map, it had numerous colonies and forts, the control of the important whale industry. The patagonia zone had 2 comisarios superintendentes (something like governors). There are numerous sources that state this:
"Esta Bahía de San Julián, sus terrenos y costas, el Puerto Deseado, Santa Elena, San Gregorio, San Jorge y Santa Cruz, con todas sus dependencias de esta costa Patagónica pertenecen al dominio del Rey de España, de que ha tenido y tiene la posesión, y como tal, de su Real Orden se visitan anualmente para que ninguna Nación los pueda ocupar"
"En la costa setentrional del Estrecho de Magallanes está el Morro de Santa Águeda o Cabo Forward, desde el cual corre hacia Norte la Cordillera de los Andes y divide a la tierra patagónica en oriental y occidental. La oriental siempre se consideró del Virreinato de Buenos Aires hasta el Estrecho de Magallanes... La Patagonia occidental pertenecía al Reino de Chile hasta el mismo Estrecho de Magallanes, no obstante que las conversiones de indios no pasaban de lo más Sud del Archipiélago de Chiloé con algunas entradas que hacían los misioneros en el Archipiélago de Guaytecas o de Chonos"
There is an article on spanish wiki called "Establecimientos Patagonicos" that lists a lot more colonies than the ones shown in this article, I dont know why for example "Pueblo de Nueva Murcia", "Nuestra Señora del Carmen" (actual city of Viedma, capital city of Rio Negro) and more are not included in the map. There were also forts, in Rio Negro there were 3 forts. Then you take a look at other possesion maps and see Antartica, North Pole, Sahara desert as possesions, and it is quite disturbing.
Fireinthegol (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Ahem!, ahem!: numerous colonies and forts, numerous sources: these are examples of weasel words, which is opposite to WP:NPV. Bearing in mind that wikipedia is not a source of wikipedia, in the article Establecimientos coloniales de la Patagonia atlántica appears the explanation for 4 establishments (marked with boldface writing and which are the same that are depicted in the map of the Spanish empire), whereas appears 3 points in that map. It seems as if Puerto Deseado do not belong to the same type that others due to its mercantile character.
Río Negro: Fuerte de Nuestra Señora del Carmen de Río Negro y Pueblo de Nueva Murcia (1779-) [18]. The emplacement on the current Viedma was destroyed soon and relocated to another side of the river in the current Carmen de Patagones. [19]. The Spanish copulative conjunction y (and) does not indicate two different emplacements, the name is so long. When I depicted the map, I realized that to place a name as Fuerte de Nuestra Señora del Carmen de Río Negro y Pueblo de Nueva Murcia occupied almost the half of the map, which is not very aesthetic. But the establishment, referred as Carmen of Patagones or another one of limited length, is located where it has to be.
Bahía de San Julián: Nueva Población y Fuerte de Floridablanca (1780-1784): [20]
Puerto Deseado (1780-1784; 1790-1807) [21] Fuerte san Carlos [22] (the long name is Castillos de Todos los Santos y San Carlos[23])
With regard to the text of 1803: En la costa setentrional del Estrecho de Magallanes está el Morro de Santa Águeda o Cabo Forward... you have omitted a curious phrase: La [Patagonia] oriental siempre se consideró del Virreinato de Buenos Aires hasta el Estrecho de Magallanes, sin embargo de no tener más establecimientos que hasta el Río Negro y la Guardia de la Bahía de San José. (The oriental [Patagonia] always was considered of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Aires up to the Strait of Magellan, nevertheless did not have more establishments than as far as the Rio Negro and the Guard of the Bay of San Jose). It is very enlightening, since it mentions that in the Patagonia there were only 2 establishments (depicted in the map), nothing of occupying the whole coast, and let alone the interior lands. With regard to the oriental Patagonia, it indicates that the missionary activity reached Chiloé, since it is depicted in the map.
The text Esta Bahía de San Julián, sus terrenos y costas... it refers to a plaque that was placed when Spaniards left San Julián's territory (1784), and does not have any more validity than the pretension when a territory gets lost, alike that if it had be written that almost the whole America belonged to Spain according to the treaty of Tordesillas: simply such texts are declarations of pretences. Nonetheless there are some issues that focus the attention. Firstly, there is mention neither to the interior of Patagonia, nor to the whole coast, simply to a few coastal exclaves, where really it could had been applied Spanish sovereignty; and another aspect is the toponymy: if so numerous the sources are, there will be no problem to elucidate how it was the Spanish presence in these quoted territories, beyond the simple exploration. Now then, also there is a technical problem: if in the Persian Gulf it has not been possible to place any and every of the Portuguese forts due the limitation of the space and I had to circumscribe those places wich secondary sources give more importance, then if there are more Patagonian forts and are very close between them, it is necessary to circumscribe to the existing space and emphasize the territories more significant, that it is what the sources mention more.
La [Patagonia] oriental siempre se consideró del Virreinato de Buenos Aires hasta el Estrecho de Magallanes, sin embargo de no tener más establecimientos que hasta el Río Negro y la Guardia de la Bahía de San José. Yet in the map the Spanish pressence is limited to Buenos Aires, when this source states that it was at least up to Río Negro and San José.
I see this has not been the first discussion about it, I suggest this solution:
I think it is fair to say that Buenos Aires had considerable influence on the zone south of it, as it was an important town with a lot of military and commercial power (40.000 inhabitants prior to independence, a lot for the time, and capital of Rio de la Plata, with lots of governorns), so I would consider normal to include also the interior of that controlled zone, but I only included the coast from Buenos Aires to San José, which had important Spanish pressence and it is completely sourced. Fireinthegol (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
In WP:NOR we read Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them [...] Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. The aforementioned text (La [Patagonia] oriental siempre se consideró del Virreinato de Buenos Aires hasta el Estrecho de Magallanes,... ) is Andrés Baleato's description in 1803, and such quotation is a primary source. Simply it is necessary to have care on showing such description because someone can express unsuitabilities, for example, the text could be biased in agreement to political or ideological directives of the government at the time. If we bear in mind that Baleato was a cosmographer, and that his description would have been scientific, then it might invoke that the meaning expressions in Spanish at the time does not fit with the current epoch: the preposition hasta in the DRAE of 1837 (also in that of 1803[24]) [25] means que sirve para expresar el término de lugares, acciones y cantidades continuas o discretas (that serves to express the end of places, actions and quantities continuous or discrete). When the quote indicates that sin embargo de no tener más establecimientos que hasta el Río Negro y la Guardia de la Bahía de San José, the word hasta indicates that Rio Negro and San Jose were included, but the text does not clarify if the possessions are continuous or discontinuous, and therefore it do not pin down if the territory that exists betwixt is included or not. Inasmuch as it does not correspond to editors of wikipedia to interpret primary sources, the procedure consists of taking the secondary sources.
In this case we find that the designation is as Patagonian enclaves. [26]. Llivia is a Spanish enclave in France, for the fact that the town is separated from the rest of Spain: the territory is not continuous.
Also we read: El puerto San Julián distaba más de 2000 km de la capital del virreinato y las rutas terrestres que le unían con el Río de La Plata y con los otros establecimientos patagónicos, como Rio Negro, eran aún desconocidas. La movilidad de las personas y el abastecimiento de víveres y bastimentos podía llevarse a cabo únicamente por vía marítima.[27] (The Puerto San Julián was far more than 2000 km from the capital of the viceroyalty and the terrestrial routes that joined it with Río de La Plata and with other Patagonian establishments, as Rio Negro, they were still unknown. The mobility of the persons and the supply of provisions and supplies of victuals could be carried out only by sea route). In the north of Africa Spain hold (and nowadays) with enclaves, let's put as example Melilla and Oran: the communication between them was not terrestrial, due to a hostile environment, but maritime; nevertheless, though the Spanish ships could sail close to the coast, this does not hint to all that the land between Melilla and Oran was Spanish territory also.
It is indicated the isolationism of the establishments, as a sample, la colonia permaneció aislada de la metrópoli y del virreinato por periodos de varios meses (the colony remained isolated of the metropolis and of the viceroyalty by periods of several months). [28]
If really there had been a terrestrial route, then there had been a series of military detachments to assure the road link, also places of victualling, there would have been an economic and bureaucratic activity, specially if there were an important Spanish pressence, nevertheless I do not find sources about anything of this. The situation of these emplacements was remote, and dependent by sea on the viceroyalty. I ignore if there exist secondary sources that treat the Spanish expansion in this area, and if at the beginning of the 19th century it could be carried out a terrestrial way of communication between emplacements. But insofar as such sources do not appear and having secondary source that show isolation, it does not suitable to depict the coast in the map according to the policy of wikipedia. Trasamundo (talk) 02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
But that secondary source refers to the stablishments of Floridablanca, not to the stablishments of Río Negro and Bahía de San José which are the zones I marked. It is clear, as you say, that a land route hadn't been established or secured to Floridablanca, but it is not clear that a land route hadn't been stablished between Buenos Aires and Río Negro, Bahía de San José, or even Puerto Deseado. On the source you provided it is said: "arribaron a San Julián 4 buques que transportaban a gente y bastimientos para instalar el establecimiento. Uno de ellos, el bergantín Francisco de Paula, procedentede Puerto Deseado, transportaba al superintendente Antonio Viedma" (4 ships arrived with settlers and food at San Julian to stablish the colony. One of them, originary from Puerto Deseado, brought the governor Antonio Viedma). This suggest that Puerto Deseado was strong enough to collaborate directly in the stablishments with people and food, not as an isolated colony would have done. It is also said this: "el movimiento de embarcaciones sugiere que la colonia de San Julián no pasó por periodos largos de aislamiento". (the stablishment of San Julián didn't suffer long periods of isolation). On the primary source, regarding the use of the word "hasta":
If he was refering to discontinual establishments (using "hasta" with the meaning of "as far as"), he should have said "sin embargo de no tener más establecimientos que hasta el Floridablanca y Nombre de Jesús", because they were the southernmost Spanish establishments. Instead of using the southernmost establishments, he used "sin embargo de no tener más establecimientos que hasta el Río Negro y la Guardia de la Bahía de San José", meaning that this establishments were different, more controlled and less isolated than Floridablanca and Nombre de Jesús. I think that, based on the primary source, at least the coast until Río Negro and Bahia de San Julían should be included.
On the other hand, this dispute is refered exclusively to the amerindian pressence, because other European countries were never capable of stablishing in Patagonia. Following this logic, the amerindian controlled land in North america should not be included on Spanish, British, or French empire maps. It is included because normally, the disputes between european nations is the one that are counted, and Spain was obviously dominant in the zone over other European nations like Britain, France or Portugal. Fireinthegol (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)}
Land route between Buenos Aires and the Río Negro (or even Puerto Deseado !!!) in the XVIIIth or early XIXth century is just as a fantastic idea as you can get. Land routes south of the Salado river wouldn't be under Buenos Aires control until the second quarter of the XIXth century (see: Map). Only in the last quarter of that century would the Río Negro, (at the crossings of Choele Choel island) be accesible by land, after the first J. A. Roca campaign (Conquest_of_the_desert#Roca's campaign) --IANVS (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Re/european claims and indegenous dominions: the trend should be the opposite, Fireinthegol, as it is quite imperialistic to hold still to that kind of european law priority on the way to understand world history. --IANVS (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Have to say that I am not overly convinced by Fireinthegol's argument. With regard (and this issue has been raised a few times here) to other colonial empires, it depends on the time frame. Obviously in the period before Argentine independene communications were much harder, and Spanish control over Patagonia was very doubtful over than exerting a claim to the area. To contrast it with, say the British Empire, which lasted until at least the 1950s - the Australian outback and the Canadian Artic were both accessible by transport and in both cases the inhabitants accepted Anglo-Australian/Canadian rule - even if slightly reluctantly in some cases. There is a fundamental difference there, between that situation and Patagonia. Had the Spanish held onto Argentina/Chile for another century and a half and brought the inhabitants on board then it would belong on map. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
I could my following commentary as why cannot speculate in Wikipedia without taking into account the sources. With reference to the quote arribaron a San Julián 4 buques... para instalar el establecimiento, lack of adding a fines de octubre y principios de noviembre de 1780 (by the end of October and beginning of November of 1780). Fireinthegol has deduced speculating that Puerto Deseado was strong enough to collaborate directly in the stablishments with people and food, not as an isolated colony would have done, whereas the sources indicate another result: Puerto Deseado was a either secondary town [29] or provisional town where a few colonists were located in 1780, and afterwards employed San Julián (Francisco de Viedma se decidió por Puerto Deseado, donde estableció provisionalmente una parte de los colonos que llevaba consigo; luego, pareciéndole preferible el puerto de San Julián, hizolo asiento de un establecimiento definitivo Francisco de Viedma plumped for Puerto Deseado, where he established provisionally a part of the settler that he carried around; then, he preferred Puerto San Julián, and settled a definitive establishment [30]. In addition, if Puerto Deseado was so prosperous and strong enough why had it to be left in 1783/4?. (ya en 1783 habían desaparecido already in 1783 they had disappeared[31]). This is what happens when it is not used the data, the speculation appears and it draws conclusions not found in any source. This it is not the way of proceeding in wikipedia.
I doubt very much that Baleato's description in 1803 included establishments of Floridablanca and Nombre de Jesús, when the former was left in 1784 and the latter, annihilated ca. 1587. Conceiving in my mind that I could have expressed badly, the character of isolated is not insomuch that resources became scarce as effectively occurred (los establecimientos en Puerto Deseado, Fuerte del Carmen de Río Negro y Bahía de San Julián exigían el suministro de todo lo necesario para la existencia cotidiana -víveres, herramientas, materiales, pertrechos de de guerra, munición, ganado, medicinas, etc.- y ni aun enviando todo esto desde Montevideo se podía garantizar su subsistencia the establishments in Puerto Deseado, Fuerte del Carmen de Río Negro y Bahía de San Julián demanded the supply of everything necessary for the daily existence - provisions, tools, materials, supply of of war, ammunition, cattle, medicines, etc. - and even sending all that from Montevideo could not guarantee their subsistence[32]); but they were separated. How do we know that they were separated? For the concept enclave. Madrid was neither an enclave, nor Buenos Aires, but the references quote the Patagonian enclaves, and more specifically Carmen de Patagones (at Río Negro) appears as enclave [33][34], even in 1862 Carmen de Patagones continued being an enclave, but belonging to Argentina. [35] For my part, without thinking anything, simply reading that the Patagonian establishments appear as enclaves in secondary sources, I have the certainty that they were separated from the viceroyalty, and I have neither to imagine nor to wish routes. I think that, based on the primary source, is speculative, opposite to WP:NOR and is not admissible here. Trasamundo (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
There is a reason why amerindian countries or boundaries are not shown on the XVIII century maps. Not because there is an europeans bias but because amerindian was a culture that made no claims on sovereignty or formed countries, they lived in tribes, they didnt collect taxes, they didnt have the concepts of country or private property. Even today, there are tribes in South America that are not really controlled or pay taxes or have an ID card.
If you take a look at colonial maps, you will see that the Sahara desert belonged to France, the Iraq and Australian deserts to Britain. Not because they had secure land routes (they didn't), but because other European nations wouldn't dare to enter without an army. The objective of Spain in the Patagonia was not to subjugate the natives. The objective were the maritime resources, the rivers and stopping Britain and France to stablish there. They were successful in all of these. When the United States purchased Louisiana from France, they stil had to deal with natives, because France legally owned that territory over Europeans, but didnt control it over the natives. Australia didn't have control over the aboriginal people until XX century, so it's difficult to accept that aboriginals recognized British rule.
Trasamundo, answer to this. Baleato's description in 1803 says that Eastern Patagonia had no further stablishments than Río Negro and Bahía de San José, but in the time, Puerto Deseado existed. Why didnt he said "de no tener mas establecimientos que hasta Puerto Deseado" ?
In Río Negro, there were 2 forts and an stablishment: En 1782 Francisco de Biedma fundó un fuerte en cada orilla del río Negro para resguardar a Carmen de Patagones, el Fuerte San Javier al sur y el Fuerte Invencible al norte. (In 1782, Francisco de Biema founded 2 forts in Río Negro, one at each side of the river to secure Carmen de Patagones). It is not only the maritime routes that were used, the control over the rivers was also important. Fuera de que se podría descubrir un camino más corto para navegar este río, con barcos hasta Valdivia. The enclaves that you say were controlled the strategic positions, and always had 1 or 2 forts to protect them. Apart from this, in the atcual location of Mar del Plata there was other establishment, "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán", En 1746 se estableció una reducción jesuítica llamada "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán" adyacente a la Laguna Las Cabrillas que llegó a albergar cerca de quinientas personas (In 1746 it was stablished a colony which had 500 inhabitants). This meant a colony every 200km along the coast up to Peninsula of Valdés. Maybe that is why Baleato's description used "up to" San José, because an stablishment every 200km is rather continuous. Fireinthegol (talk) 00:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you overstate and generalize the indigenous issues, Fireinthegol. In some cases what you say is true, but not in others. But, putting aside the issues of whether indigenous peoples had "the concepts of country or private property" or "claims on sovereignty" and so on (I'd argue they often did, but let's leave that aside), the territorial claims shown on old maps should be read with great caution for other reasons. Such maps were often--perhaps nearly always--intended as political statements, even propaganda. The first example that comes to my mind is the Mitchell Map, which is extremely pro-British and anti-French (and anti-Spanish) in the way it depicts nearly everything. The nationalistic bias of that map may be blatant, but I would suggest that nearly every colonial-era map that shows colonial territory is similarly effected by nationalistic bias. In short, they ought to be read with extreme caution. ..I was going to write a little more but have to run, later! Pfly (talk) 01:03, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh well, with european law priority I was referring, precisly to the concepts of sovereignity and statehood. I hope we would agree that, when it comes to historical and specifically pre-modern political entities (such as the many cacicazgos of both tehuelches and mapuches) we would consider them as such, in the same manner we would consider the Visigothic feuds when they were legally Roman vassals. I mean, whatever the legal claims on Spanish sovereignity over Patagonia (or how much would those legal claims count for the other european states) there was in fact no effective state power south of the Salado River until mid-XIXth century, except for a few outspots along the patagonian east coast which you people are discussing right now.
My only other intervention is to make clear that there was no effective sovereignity over the land routes, neither the amerindians were friendly, passive, or indifferent to Europeans. They were, for the most of time, openly hostile and did never act as de facto crown subjets. Indeed, until the Conquest of the Desert campaign, most confederated cacique leaders would contract trades or truces (or even alliances) with Buenos Aires or Chile as veritable chieftains of the people and the lands under their de facto control.
On the other hand, of course the Spanish (and Argentine, and Chilean) outposts were there, as they are marked on the map, but it is fictitious to assert the the land in between was effectively more than a sovereignity claim vis-à-vis the european international law. By the way, since you continue to speculate that, four, five -or even ten- more outposts would argue for the exercise of state power over a continuous strip of land, do better consider the distances and geographical features of the terrain. Then you would agree such a control would be impossible on that period.
(PS: Maybe we should add in a lighter color the almost universally recognized territorial claims fo the Spanish crown. Also, this could be a criteria useful for other colonial map depictions) --IANVS (talk) 01:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with that is the vagueness of "almost universally recognized territorial claims". For North America, for example, it is unclear whether that would be what is currently shown on the map (Louisiana and the area south of the 42nd parallel), or whether it should include the bulk of the western half of the continent, clear to Alaska. Both the Russians and British knew they were "illegally" encroaching on territory generally considered Spanish--even if the Spanish claim was not "respected". During the Nootka Crisis, for example, Britain knew it's claim to the Pacific Northwest, as against Spain's, was weak, but under the threat of war Spain was forced to modify its claims of exclusive sovereignty. Nevertheless, when the United States acquired the Spanish claims via the Adams–Onís Treaty, the Americans held that they had acquired exclusive sovereignty up to 54°40′ (north of which the US had already granted as Russian). That's part of the difficulty with mapping claims--there is a wide spectrum about how realistic claims were, even when widely recognized. Pfly (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
What I tried to suggest on my last comment is that a great deal of what it is now shaded as actual Spanish possessions (at least in the Americas) were in fact under analogous conditions than Patagonia (i.e. most of the Chaco was not effectively ruled until the late XIXth century, or even later for the Paraguayan/Bolivian Chaco). But, as stated on the existing map, certainly these lands were neither claimed by any other State, so they should deserve a mention as Spanish veritable claims (the same with Patagonia).
On the other hand, I'm conscious of the many problems to do this. But, since this is an anachronous map, we should consider the maximum extent of those claims as they once appeared uncontested (even when they were not necessarily effective, or when they were later de facto contested by other international power). The two shades would be even a step ahead from the Portuguese Empire map, which include territorial claims under the same colour tha actual colonial possessions. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 03:13, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I agree that there are a few zones that are fully coloured but where the natives were not subjugated, like in parts of actual United states where it is known that Amerindians were not subjugated until the XIX century (this standard would affect French and British empire maps mostly). But if you could ask a XVIII century Britishman who owned the Patagonian zone, he would very likely answer that Spain, because it was the undisputed international power there, exploiting resources, trading with natives and controlling the zone. I think there is a difference between not having pressence at all (not coloured), being undisputed ruler (half coloured) and being undistputed ruler and settler (full coloured). That difference should be marked. Fireinthegol (talk) 05:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you (Fireinthegol and IANVS) have read the (very very long) archives of this talk page. If not, don't read all of them (it would take forever and be painful!), but a few sections might be worth checking out. If I understand Trasamundo's main goal in making the map, it was to show only those areas that were ever actually under Spanish rule. He originally wrote the map caption as "The areas of the world that at one time were ruled by the Spanish Empire." I argued for the phrasing "The areas of the world that at one time were territories of the Spanish Empire", mainly because, as you say, there are colored areas in North America that were never under Spanish rule in the sense of subjugated natives. In hindsight, perhaps my push for the term "territories" instead of "ruled by" was misguided. It might be cause for confusion about just what the map is supposed to be showing--which is just those areas that were actually under Spanish rule. Of course that goal is not fully possible, which complicates the issue. For example, there were quite large regions in what is now New Mexico and Texas that may or may not have been under Spanish rule. Natives like the Comanche did in fact sign treaties that, by European law, made them subjects of Spain. But the Comanche were never really ruled by Spain. One could argue that the most or all of the province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México was actually "ruled by" the Comanche (such a case is made in the excellent book by Hämäläinen, Pekka (2008), The Comanche Empire). Furthermore, there were many small pockets within the larger blocks of Spanish rule that remained effectively unsubjugated, but it would be impractical to attempt to show such pockets on a global map like this. So the basic goal of showing only areas ruled by Spain is not something that can be fully attained. Still, it can be a goal to aspire toward reaching. Anyway, the topic was discussed at some length in the past, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archives_3#Map_of_the_Spanish_Empire_without_claims - where Trasamundo first proposed the map and various discussions ensued.
The issue of Patagonia also came up a few times and was debated at length--all in the archived talk page now. I know little about the Patagonia issues and so have no strong opinion on the matter, but if you haven't read the previous discussions, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archives_3#the_new_map - especially the subsection "Lost territories to the Hispanic American wars of independence (1828)". Patagonian issues were also gone over at length in parts of the very long http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archives_3#factually_wrong_map ... I'm not about to claim that the issues were resolved, but they were certainly explored. My apologies if you have already read these. Pfly (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well I've read some of the discussions (all of them is impossible). Like a lot of them, I have the opinion that there is a double standard regarding British and Spanish issues (maybe because majority of editors are British or anglosaxon). I know I am not the first one that finds this map controversial, and probably I won't be the last one, so I think this should be resolved in a voting here, or a voting to include a standard over general imperial maps. Wether if the standard is ruling over western nations and using the natural resources (like in every map other than Spanish), or ruling over western nations, using the natural resources and ruling over natives so they worked for the empire it makes a big difference. Fireinthegol (talk) 23:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, finally the ship already has arrived to the harbour, what happened about the Patagonian establishments? I would not like to write any more the reasons why the map not depict claims, those who were in the discussions one year ago, we had the disagreeable experience of contemplating the endless battlefield that such issue originated.
I do not want to extend very much, the sovereignty refers to territories not to peoples, insomuch as the sovereignty would not be possible on uninhabited territories. Since the concerned territories are inhabited, the sovereignty refers to the capacity (capacity suppose possibility) to practise coercive power within its territory [36] This includes the capacity of protecting the territory and the people on it from any threats, but it needs also the coercive capacity.
Even applying the notion of terra nullius in that the organized tribes of peoples of non-European lands had no sovereignty rights over their territories and thus no sovereign title: that the Spanish achieved to frighten the English does not suppose the Spanish aptitude to exercise sovereignty in the territory.
During the 15th century the Portuguese and Castilians fought for the possession of African route of the gold (Mina de Oro), since the Portuguese consider such territory as own on the basis of the bullas Romanus Pontifex (1454) and Inter Caetera (1456). Though the Portuguese managed to separate the Castilians in the treaties of Alcaçovas and Tordesillas, this did not convert all lands and African coasts automatically into Portuguese on the basis of a reflection, but the Portugueses established simply a serie of outposts, anything that arises not from the lucubration, but reading sources: With only a small number of trading posts along the coast, it is clear that the Portugueses could not claim sovereignty over whole 5000 km strech of Guinea from Cape Blanco to the Bight of Biafra. In fact, direct Portuguese influence on the Gold Coast extended litle beyond the castle walls, and certainly not beyond the adjoining African villages[37]
In case of Patagonia, in spite of frightening the English, had Spain capacity to exercise sovereignty in Patagonia?, the sources establish not at all: Nearly all of the territory south of this boundary - roughly defined by the military outposts linking the colonial settlements of Buenos Aires, San Luis, Mendoza, Santiago y Concepcion - remanined free of colonial rule. With the exception of a few heavily defended Spanish outposts along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, native peoples claimed and enjoyed sovereignty in this vast region known as Patagonia by the Europeans [38]
When I read this quote (and more references) and later Fireinthegol's affirmations about Spain was undisputed international power controlling Patagonia (but did not he say that Spain controlled a coastal zone 5 days ago?), and as he beats around the bush with a primary source when there are secondary sources that establish the opposite, then I can get an idea of the epistemologic validity such declarations and subsequents.
The truth is that it is enough frustrating that for many sources that I present, never is sufficient, it does not matter what the secondary sources explicitly establish, or the policies of wikipedia, it seems like I always have to ask for excuses, to apologize and to answer to lucubrations, impressions, beliefs, suppositions, theories of conspiracies that appear all of them as affirmations ex-cathedra, and ultimately everything stays as winnowing water. Trasamundo (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo don't try to judge me in your comments. Your map has generated an incredible amount of discussions, it is highly controversial because the primary sources clearly state that Spain had control over the coast up to Río Negro and San José and you don't seem to understand this, so you look for other secondary sources that claim different things to mantain your position at all costs. We are not discussing if Spain had direct colonial rule over the interior land of Patagonia (it is obvious that it didn't) we are discussing the direct rule over the coast, which was effective based on primary sources, and depicting effective claims to the interior lands in the sense of being undisputed European ruler, that is not the main objective though. Even if you are not willing to depict the rule over the coast in your map, you should mention the colony of "Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán", in the actual position of Mar del Plata which you omitted, thanks. Fireinthegol (talk) 02:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
When I wrote above about the Mitchell Map and the need for caution in using old colonial-era maps, I meant to continue and say something about the need to be very careful with primary sources of any kind. As with maps, primary source documents can be misleading, deliberately or not, blatantly or subtly, for many reasons. I could babble on about it, but instead will just point to Wikipedia policy (even though I don't like being a "policy cop"). The need to avoid or at least be extremely cautious with primary sources, depending instead on secondary sources is a policy of Wikipedia; see WP:PRIMARY. A few key passages from the policy: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." And, "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Pfly (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, I entirely respect the great amount of work you sure have spent on the creation and/or readjustment of this map (and the -probably- greater amount of patience you had so as to endure these recurring polemic discussions about the topic). Sincerely, I thank you very much for both sacrifices. Furthermore, I'd like to express that I consider the quality of this map way superior (in details, accuracy, and information) to every other modern empire map around here in wikipedia. Probably, this one is even among the best of all wikipedia-created maps.
What I'm going to say now may be also pretty obvious, but I would like to suggest you a couple of things, and I don't want to keep them to myself: on the one hand, the aformentioned map was obviously the final product of a large process involving an important quantity of people that worked hard to get a common ground on this, so please don't take the polemics too personally nor do assume that you have some exclusive responsability -or right- over it. I'm sure this attitude would definitely help now and in subsequent discussions.
Now, to the point: the way to adress the composition of these former empires maps is, quite evidently by now, a highly polemic subject (in the same measure that the related topic is an old controversial matter on itself), so I beg we keep our spirits cool down and stay open minded so as to find alternative ways for improving these maps, if it happens to be truly necessary. In fact, I do believe that the periodical recurrence of heated debate about these topics is a clear sign that some aspects can eventually be modified for the better. Please don't assume that everyone of those many interventions are narrowly or stubborny (?) opinionated.
For Pfly to understand, the primary source that we have is a 1803 geographic description, it says this (translated):
In the north coast of the Strait of Magellan there is the Cape Forward, which divides the Patagonia in eastern and western. The eastern part was always considered part of the Vicerroyalty of Buenos Aires up to the strait of Magellan, although only having stablishments up to Río Negro and Bahía de San José. The western part belonged to the kingdom of Chile up to the same strait of Magellan, although no indian conversions were done to the south of the Chiloé Archipielago with some exceptions in the Guaytecas and Chonos archipielagos. Tierra del Fuego didn't have stablishments or conversions belonging to Buenos Aires or Chile, and the separation from the mainland made the sovereignty imaginary.
I think it doesn't have a lot of "bias", but, taking only the part that is clarified (stablishments up to Río Negro and Bahía de San José), this part of the coast should be depicted.
Apart from the Spanish settlements along the coast, we can take a look at the relations with natives. In this regard, the Mapuches and Pehuenches clause in the Parliament of Quilín (1647) was:
"que han de eftar en cabeza de su Mageftad, y debaxo de fu Real amparo, reconocerle
vafallage como a fu feñor; y que con efto fe bolveran a poblar fus tierras, y
los Efpañoles podran reedificar fus antiguas ciudades.
Que eftaran obligados a falir fiempre que fueren apercibidos, con armas,
y cavallos a qualquiera faccion, que fe ofrezca der fervicio de fu Mageftad,"[39] (page 130)
("That they have to be under the head of the king, under his royal shelter, recognise him as their master; and that with this, their lands will be populated once more and the spaniards will reedificate their cities. That they will be forced to aid every faction that serves the king with weapons and horses every time that is needed.")
Note that the Mapuches, which like this sweared their loyalty to the king of Spain, after conquered all the Patagonian zone in the process known as Araucanization. And they effectively aided the Spanish settlers in the outposts with food and weapons. In the wars of independence of Argentina and Chile, Mapuches were still loyal to the king, fighting mostly for the Spanish side. (The aid of the Mapuches was vital to the Spanish since they had lost the control of all cities and ports north of Valdivia. Mapuches valued the treaties made with the Spanish authorities) Fireinthegol (talk) 09:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm afraid I can't really provide an opinion on Patagonian issues, sources, etc., as I know so very little about it. You may well be right. I know more about the native-Spanish relations in North America, and there were a number of cases where tribes signed treaties recognizing Spanish sovereignty, and who later fought on the side on Spain against the United States--but whose sovereignty was really never anything their own. Yet again I must plead ignorance on Patagonian issues. I know so little about Patagonian history that I must say I am not necessarily defending Trasamundo's depiction there--although I have found his work to be largely excellent. But I am not the one to convince--knowing so little about Patagonia I must abstain from taking a position. My points are intended to be more general. In any case, thank you for your peaceful words above--this talk page has been a battleground for too long.
On another topic raised--that there may be a double standard on this English Wikpedia, and that Trasamundo's map will likely continue to generate controversy--I agree that the map will probably be the focus on this article's talk page. I still wish the text would be focused on and improved instead, but whatever. The double standard issue is complicated. I don't doubt that there are Anglophiles on this Wikipedia who have--knowingly or unknowingly--a pro-Britrain/America and anti-Spain bias. I can certainly see how some would see evidence of such bias in the comparison of Trasamundo's Spanish Empire map with the British Empire map. That this is the English Wikipedia only strengthens the notion of a double standard. Nevertheless, my personal opinion is that Trasaundo's map is by far the best colonial empire map on this Wikipedia--and at the same time I have no serious problem with the British Empire map. I could go on about why I think both maps are fine, but it would only add to an already too-long talk page. But I'd like to point out that for myself, although American, I have a bit of a bias toward the Spanish colonial era over the British. Yes, there may be a pro-British anti-Spanish bias on this Wikipedia, but I am not part of it. For what it is worth, I am on the Spanish-biased side. Recently I've been working on showing how Bodega y Quadra not only foiled George Vancouver in diplomacy, but treated him and his crew so well that all of them never forget and wrote in glowing terms about Bodega, and fell into mourning upon his death, and so on. In short, I find Trasamundo's map the best colonial empire map by far, while feeling okay about the British Empire map. Being ignorant of places like Patagonia I must remain silent--perhaps you are right and the map should be adjusted--I don't know. Finally, while there may be a pro-British and anti-Spanish bias on this Wikipedia, I don't see it in this map--even while understanding that people will continue to see it there. Over the last year or two I've worked to find and correct the biases that do exist. Articles on the Pacific Northwest continue to surprise me with statements about Captain James Cook being the first European to visit the region. I've gone overboard writing about Bodega y Quadra! ..hmm, sorry for the long babble. It is late. I should be sleeping. Being tired makes me babble. Pfly (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Notwithstanding I have tried several times of disengaging from this issue, it appears to be that as I have carried out the depiction of the map and as I have been present at the long and extensive previous discussions, is expectable that I intervene concerning its characteristics when the controversy arises and has arisen with expelled sockpuppets, anonymous IP, and others who unknow or ignore the policies of wikipedia, and that they throw the same sentences as they were dogmas of faith. The discussions are archived but again and again they start at ground zero and try to return to situations that created the high unrest, and such conflict has been kept for some people that they do not accept and they will not even accept that in wikipedia exists policies. And in the same way as it is frustrating to see for months the same accusations, it is more gratifying to see that it is estimated also its accuracy and this satisfies me enormously (gratefulness specially to Pfly, The Ogre and Pat Ferrick, for their support from an early stage).
Now then, how does the map approach such accuracy?. Since trying to respect policies of wikipedia. Which are these policies? Wikipedia:Verifiability: Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true; Wikipedia:No original research: Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.[...] All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. [...] Articles may include analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source.
For Fireinthegol: Also I know the policy of Wikipedia:No personal attacks: Comment on content, not on the contributor. To this respect, as I have written, I have not judged you, but I have criticized your commentaries, since due to your reflections and lucubrations you produce affirmations that they are not established in the secondary sources, so such affirmations and its subsequent derivatives lack of epistemologic validity, as when you affirmed that Puerto Deseado was strong enough to collaborate directly in the stablishments with people and food, when it was a provisional encampment that it had to be left a little time later.
With regard to Baleato's famous description, in spite of having indicated you that it is not possible to read his words with the meanings nowadays but at the time, so I placed the links to the DRAE at that time where it figure what the meaning the preposition hasta then (it indicated the end but it did not indicate if there is continuity or there is discontinuity), regardless you ignore it and translate hasta assuming yourself simply that there was continuity (that will be clearly for you), nevertheless this is referred as interpretive claim which is opposite to the policy of wikipedia of original research, even you use clearly, a weasel word. And in spite of the fact that it has been indicated you twice policy of wikipedia about the primary sources, you return to exhibit the same text. The truth is that I do not know how to make you clear and to make you understand that the procedure to edit in wikipedia is not to use primary sources, which it is a basic policy of wikipedia. So when you accuse me of looking for secondary sources really it is a praise and a recognition that I try to fulfill the policies.
I do not be exactly which is the true intentionality of showing Quillin's Parliament. You take the primary source that is annexed in the article and you deduce a series of things, breaking again the policies of wikipedia, well then, inside the same article in the page 76 there appears the explanation of the author of the article as secondary source: Parlamento de Quillin (1641) y de Maquegua (1647) Una primera concesión fue que España, capitulara las paces en Quillin en 1641. De esta forma y en igualdad de condiciones la corona pactará con los mapuche, reconociendo su independencia y poniendo límite en el Río Bío-Bío, lo que en adelante sería la zona de frontera (...). Sin embargo, esto no impidió a los mapuche realizar negociaciones con los holandeses en Valdivia en el año 1643 por cuanto, la corona se ve obligada a convocar a un nuevo parlamento en 1647, en donde España reconoce la independencia de los mapuche. [...] Es por ello que los vencedores políticos de este periodo serán los mapuche, ya que, habiendo mantenido su ser social de no sometimiento, se relacionaran con los holandeses ha objeto de lograr un eventual mejor aliado, para continuar en la guerra contra los españoles. (The first grant was that Spain capitulated the peaces in Quillin in 1641. In this way and in equality of conditions the Crown will accord with the Mapuche, recognizing their independence and putting the limit at the river Bío-Bío, which forward would be the zone of border (...). Nevertheless, this did not prevent the Mapuche from accomplishing negotiations with the Dutches in Valdivia in the year 1643 so, the Crown meets obliged to call for a new parliament in 1647, where Spain recognizes the independence of the Mapuche. [...] On that basis that the political victors of this period will be the Mapuche, since, having supported their social being of not submission, they related to the Dutches with the object to manage a better eventual allied, to continue in the war against the Spanish.)
Fortunately not everything is negative, I have had a knowledge of Nuestra Señora del Pilar del Volcán, and I will put in charge of investigate it, with secondary sources of course. Trasamundo (talk) 01:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, you don't seem to understand that if someone disagrees with you in the issue, it does not mean that it is a personal offense or an attack on your map. Your map is great. It does not mean that it can't be improved.
That they have to be under the head of the king, under his royal shelter, recognise him as their master; and that with this, their lands will be populated once more and the spaniards will reedificate their cities. That they will be forced to aid every faction that serves the king with weapons and horses every time that is needed. At least, this time the primary source is clear enough to don't let "interpretations" like with the word "hasta". It is not and interpretation to say that Mapuches sweared loyalty to the king of Spain. On the other hand, the words independence, border, etc, that mention the secondary sources are not in the sense of an independent state: Como hemos visto, una de las dificultades para los invasores fue el no encontrar, una estructura social jerárquica, o sea una sociedad paraestatal o estatal, por el contrario lo que encontró Valdivia y su gente fue una sociedad sin estado
(Like we have seen, one of the difficulties for the invaders was finding a non-organizated society, or an non-statal society. What Valdivia found was a stateless society). So the words "independence", "border", etc, are not mentioned in the sense as independent state as today, because the Mapuches were a society with no state. Talking about the relations with the dutch: Algunos historiadores, como Villalobos, dan poca importancia a estos hechos, infiriendo algunas generalizaciones, lo cual no permite observar algunos elementos que se dan en este contexto, lo cual analizado con cierta rigurosidad permite ver claramente, que en estos años los mapuche determinan el escenario político, por un lado presionando militarmente y por otro, generando espacio para el ejercicio de la diplomacia, logrando adquirir significativas concesiones aprovechando la amenaza que significaban para la corona una eventual invasión holandesa. (Some historians, like Villalobos, give little importance to this (relations with dutch), deducing some generalizations, which don't allow to observe some elements of this context, which analized with rigurosity allow us to see, clearly, that in this years, the Mapuche determine the political scenario in two different ways, militarily and with the diplomacy, so they achieve significant concessions, taking advantage of the threat that meant to the Spanish crown a possible dutch invasion). You can find these in the same source as the treaty. You can also see I did not invent or interpreted, as you said, the fact that the Mapuches aided the royalist Spanish by seeing the article on Guerra a muerte. So I do NOT interpret the primary sources on interest. I only stated the facts that have happened between Mapuches and Spanish. The majority of Mapuches were on the loyalist side in the war of independence, that is, loyal to the king.
Treaty with Indios Pampas: 1.Las paces hechas con los españoles comprenden también a los indios pampas de la reducción de Nuestra Señora de la Concepción como a vasallos del Rey. Por consiguiente se han de olvidar las diferencias pasadas, que hubo entre el cacique Brabo, y la casa del cacique Mayupilquia, y con cualquier otro indio de la reducciòn". [[40]]
(The peace made with the spaniards include also the Pampa Indians of Nuestra señora de la Concepcion as vassals of the king. Therefore, past differences should be forgotten)
Trasamundo, you have not answered yet to this: If Beleato description didn't want to use the word "hasta" in the sense of continual possesion, then why didn't he used Hasta Puerto Deseado??. It would have been logical, because Puerto Deseado was the southernmost Spanish possesion in the Patagonia.
Trasamundo, if the amerindians sweared loyalty to the king of Spain, then why do you insist in that Spain had no influence at all in the area? I know that it is difficult to answer this questions, because your position is becoming more and more difficult to mantain. I think that it doesn't matter how many sources I get, you will never change your mind because that would mean admiting that your map is wrong to you. Admit that Spain had serious influence over natives and Europeans in the area. The sources state it.
Trasamundo, if other Europeans were not capable to settle the zone (Spanish managed to frighten the English as you said) due to Spanish influence, then why do you continue denying Spanish influnce in the area?
Even if you don't change your mind and agree to change the map, other people will come and will continuously begin the same discussion, because the sources are there to support it, and you are ignoring them.
I suggest introducing a light red colour to the zones were Spanish had considerable influence, with de jure rule over natives and de facto rule over Europeans. That would mean that some regions in north america will change from dark red to light red improving the map precission. My suggestion will certainly resolve the dispute, improve the map, and it is supported by sources. I can't find the reason why you would not like to do it, as I said, maybe its because you take map issue as personal. Fireinthegol (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The statements about the primary sources can give rise to what oneself want to see. I have found editors that denied the existence of Spain (clearly, always it is clearly) on the basis that the official the kings' entitle does not appear the word Spain.
The treaties of peace offer a very nice rhetoric, it is not rare in the bilateral agreements of the XVIIth and XVIIIth century to see expressions as eternal friendship, sincere friendship, lasting peace..., and in a few quinquenniums these two countries be killing themselves again, until the following treaty of peace in which both countries repeated the same formulae of oblivion of offenses, sincere friendship... The treaty of peace is a historical manifestation as other different, but to take an agreement of peace and to explain historical processes previous and posterior to the agreement (how many years separate Parliament of Quillin and Guerra a Muerte? 180 years?) presupposes clairvoyance, nevertheless, who do not have this talent, we have to conform with reliables secondary sources that state the issues, probably your next crusade will be to show that on the basis of contents of the treaty of Madrid of 1526 Francisco I delivered the duchy of Burgundy to Carlos V. what for will be worth the secondary sources that establish that such agreement was denounced for having be signed under constraint, if such constraint does not appear in the contents of the treaty?
If you only stated the facts that have happened between Mapuche and Spanish, if you mention agreements of peace as parliament of Quillin you could comment also that los parlamentos fracasaban porque no siempre acudían los más importantes lonkos, quienes, por ese motivo, seguían luchando contra los españoles. Los belicosos toquis, por otra parte, los consideraban como una muestra de debilidad hispana, propiciando nuevos ataques para expulsarlos definitivamente. [41]the parliaments failed because the most important lonkos did not always come, who, for this motive, continued fighting against the Spanish. The bellicose toquis, on the other hand, considered the parliament as a sample of Hispanic weakness, propitiating new assaults to expel them definitively. And respect of parliament of Quilin: Francisco López de Zúñiga, celebró el parlamento de Quilín (1641) comprometiéndose a restablecer la frontera del Bíobío y deshabitar Angol. [42] Francisco López de Zúñiga celebrated the parliament of Quilín (1641) promising to restore the border of the Bíobío and to leave Angol. And again the word border appears, it doesn't matter that the Mapuche did not constitute a State, but Spain was a State and its border was in the zone of the river Bío-Bío.
Los mapuches, en efecto, en su tenaz resistencia a los conquistadores y sus descendientes, habían logrado hazañas inéditas en la historia de las Indias, que costaron la vida a dos gobernadores: al propio Pedro de Valdivia (1553) y a Martín García Oñez de Loyola (1598), y que tuvieron por consecuencia la pérdida de todo el territorio y las ciudades fundadas al sur del río Bío-Bío. Este río pasó a constituir por largos siglos un río-frontera entre ambas sociedades, la colonial y la mapuche. Esta situación obligó a la Corona a tomar una medida excepcional en sus dominios americanos: a organizar un Ejército colonial fronterizo permanente en ese difícil Reino de Chile, financiado desde el Perú. [...] La Corona se empeñó también, por otra parte, en una secular política de evangelización de estas sociedades mapuches rebeldes [...] Ambas políticas fracasaron. Los bárbaros rebeldes e infielesjamás pudieron ser sometidos ni por la espada ni por la cruz. [43] Para la sociedad y para el hombre colonial, el mundo civilizado, hispanocriollo y mestizo, cristiano, alcanzaba hasta el río Bío-Bío, más allá y hasta Chiloé (...) comenzaban las tierras de los bárbaros, indios rebeldes sin rey, sin ley, sin fe, constituyendo una amenaza permanente, real o imaginaria, para el Reino, con los cuales se mantenían contactos bélicos y también pacíficos (comercio, trueque, misiones, parlamentos). [44] The Mapuche, in effect, in their tenacious resistance to the conquerors and their descendants, had accomplish inedited feats in the history of the Indies, which cost the life to two governors: the proper Pedro de Valdivia (1553) and Martín García Oñez de Loyola (1598), and that took as a consequence the loss of the whole territory and the cities founded to the south of the river Bío-Bío. This river passed to constitute for long centuries a river-border between both societies, the colonial one and Mapuche one. This situation forced to the Crown to take an exceptional measure in its American domains: to organizes a colonial frontier permanent Army in this difficult Kingdom of Chile, financed from Peru. [...] The Crown pledged also, on the other hand, in a secular policy of evangelization of these societies rebellious Mapuche [...] Both policies failed. The rebellious and unfaithful barbarians could never be submitted either by the sword or for the cross. For the society and for the colonial man, the civilized world, hispanocriollo and mestizo, Christian, reached up to the river Bío-Bío, beyond and as far as Chiloé (...) began the lands of the Barbarian, Indian rebels without king, without law, without faith, constituting a permanent, real or imaginary threat, for the Kingdom, with which warlike contacts were kept and also pacific (trade, barter, missions, parliaments).
If I compare the underlined words here with which I underlined in my previous post about the secondary source that yourself added, they appear again and agree the lack of submission of the Mapuche and the border at the river Bío-Bío.
Durante las guerras de la Independencia, que tuvieron lugar especialmente en el centro y sur del país (con epicentros importantes desde el río Maule al Bío Bío), los mapuches no se contentaron con ser testigos impasibles de una guerra entre huincas realistas y patriotas, sino que tomaron partido por uno y otro bando según las circunstancias. [...] El debilitamiento del Estado y su vigilancia militar (ejército y fuertes) en la frontera fue aprovechado por los guerreros mapuches para aliarse alternativamente con ambos ejércitos enemigos, con el fin de realizar malocas contra los pueblos, haciendas y estancias fronterizos[45]During the war of Independence, which took place specially in the center and south of the country (with important epicentres from the river Maule to the Bío Bío), the Mapuche were not satisfied with being impassive witnesses of a war between huincas royalists and patriots, but they took sides for one and another sides according to the circumstances. [...] The weakening of the State and its military alertness (army and forts) in the border was taken advantage by the warriors Mapuche to be allied alternative by both enemy armies, in order to realize malocas against the peoples, homestead and cattle ranches
With what the loyal and submissive vision of the Mapuche, and the Spanish influence (howsoever want that it is tried to indicate by it) is a new misconception based on your original analysis of primary sources. In the secondary sources the territory and the people Mapuche appears threatening to the Spanish, limited to the border of the river Bío-Bío and to commercial relations when there was no war. Though the scanty Spanish presence to the south of this river at the end of the 18th century, has made me see that I have to check this zone and change the depiction of the map.
The supposed loyalty Mapuche during the war of Independence in secondary source shows us to be interested, and even changeable with the Chileans independentist, it does not remove that the support Mapuche to royalist Spanish was very important in this side. As far as I remember that the Swiss were to the service of other powers, but it it does not mean that the Swiss territory should belong to the countries which the Swiss serve. A hegemonic world power as it was the Spanish empire with presence around the world had influence in zones of the world bordering to its interests, and I find much more influence of Spain in the territories of the Reichsitalien that in Patagonia.
Returning with Baleato's description, it refers to the viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata, I do not have to interpret what appears or does not appears in this document and why. But I also can do my original analysis: Though I considers hasta in the sense of continual possession or discontinual, Puerto Deseado do not appear by any means, so this establishment (Puerto Deseado at the time was a fishery) would not constitute a part of the administration of the viceroyalty, probably due to it was a commercial establishment directly dependent of Madrid.
Since already I have said before the discussion have been long and extensive, even with denunciations, precisely a problematic topic was the presence during months in the article of template OR for other different maps that were basing on original analysis. To avoid this, there were eliminated the claims, spheres of influence and other vaguenesses at startup. To avoid OR the policies of wikipedia are explicit, also I know that there are people who do not know them, or ignore them, and due to this, the issue continues and will be continued by whoever does not respect these policies. Trasamundo (talk) 03:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The Swiss never signed a treaty swearing loyalty to the king of France. If they had done so, be sure that Swizterland would be depicted as a client state of France in the maps. You can be sceptic about the content of treaties, but their legal value is important under international law. That treaty included subordination, no matter the interpretations you may do. When Napoleon invaded Spain, Spanish were not really working for France, they were fighting against French, but Spain was effectively a client state of France, because Jose Bonaparte was the official King. The same happens here, Mapuches officially declared loyalty to the Spanish king, no matter if some Mapuches didn't because the official treaties is what count, there is no possible interpretation.
Can you look for a source that says that Puerto Deseado was administrated directly by Madrid? if not, your argument makes no sense at all.
Btw I think that if Pfly is neutral, I am in favour and IANVS is in favour, then we are 2 against 1. You cannot take a dictatorial stance in the issue.
I want to ask you to restate just what you are wishing to see, but this section is so long now I think we should start a new one. I'll do so and ask my question there. Pfly (talk) 06:47, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick, try to edit when you can bring a good argument like I did. And do not compare me to Cosialscastells, and do not judge my edits as rambling. Your edit is pure original research, offensive and completely useless. Go to British empire to depict all the world as British and leave this alone. Fireinthegol (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Fireinthegoal: your claim that the some Mapuche tribes did became legal subjects to the Spanish Crown (BTW, only in Araucania, Chile), is quite irrelvant as long as they continued to act as an independent nation (with this I refer to its many tribes and confederations) as long as they were not military conquered. The very quote you brought here states this! The same for your argument about the some Araucanian Mapuche factions siding with royalist forces in the 1810s wars of independence... the same article you link states that they didn't do it for the sake of loyalty to the Crown authority but for strategic interest. Again, on the same linked paragraph you'll learn that other tribes sided with the revolutionaries... even that many factions changed sides during the war!
I rest my case as this thread goes. If you want, please re-state your argument on the following section that Pfly created for the sake of this discussion. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
The question of Spanish control in Patagonia
Okay, following on the last section: Could you restate what it is you would like to see, Fireinthegol? After so much talk it is hard to tell exactly! Is it that you'd like the map to be red along the coast south of Río de la Plata to and including the Valdes Peninsula? I can't quite tell where the settlement of San José was, but Bahía de San José is on the north side of the narrow "neck" of the Valdes Peninsula. Is this right? By "coast" do you mean just a thin strip following the coast, or something extending farther inland? Am I right to assume you are arguing that this coastal reach between Río de la Plata and Valdes Peninsula was under Spanish control, rule, etc? I can't quite tell if you are saying it was under Spanish control or Mapuche control, with the Mapuche considered incorporated into the Spanish Empire. Pfly (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
Well that is the one that should be, as the mapuches and indios pampas sweared loyalty to the king of Spain but mantained autonomy, and the sioux north also had autonomy, even being subjects of the king. Fireinthegol (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
The main trouble I have is the vagueness of the label for orange colored areas: "Territories in which the natives had a certain degree of Autonomy". First, "territories"? Territories within areas ruled by Spain? That would be contradictory. Territories claimed by Spain? That would include all of the Americas west of Portuguese Brazil--since the map is "anachronous" and Spain really did claim of all North America at one time. Trying to map "claims" is a can of worms. Second, "certain degree of Autonomy"? How much is a "certain degree"? What reliable source could possibly be used to decide one way or the other for all natives across the entire Spanish Empire's lands and claims over all time? Even if it could be done, how would you determine the territory of native groups, especially anachronously? The Sioux, for example, did not have fixed borders. Plus they migrated over the historic era from what is now Wisconsin to the northwest high plains. The Comanche, likewise, migrated from what is now Idaho to New Mexico and Texas. In short, I can't see how one could map "Territories in which the natives had a certain degree of Autonomy" without having to resort to relatively arbitrary personal decisions. (also, when did the Sioux become subjects of Spain? I never heard of such a thing) Pfly (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why Patagonia doesn't count as Spanish, but the whole western United States does. Did Spain really have any kind of effective control over Utah and Colorado (or Minnesota and Iowa) beyond what it had in Patagonia? john k (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
I was researching the Patagonia questions and reading (with google translate helping my very poor Spanish) the Spanish Wikipedia page/section Organización militar del Virreinato del Río de la Plata (section:) Comandancia de Marina del Río de la Plata. It seems to say that in 1802 the fleet included Corbeta Descubierta and Corbeta Atrevida, both of 20 cañones. Is it possible that these were the Descubierta and Atrevida of Alessandro Malaspina? Maybe they were simply named in honor of Malaspina's corvettes. I've researched Malaspina's voyage and his corvettes quite a bit--and just recently created the page about them. I had trouble finding out what happened to the ships after Malaspina returned to Spain in 1794. Both were only 5 years old and apparently well built. They must have been put to some use after 1794, right? I tried to find info about their fate after 1794 but got nowhere. It is possible they ended up in the Río de la Plata fleet? Or, to ask a different way, might there be Spanish sources with info about their post-1794 fate? My ability to find (and read!) Spanish sources is not good. So I post here knowing some of you read this page and are good with Spanish sources and research. Any ideas? Thanks. Pfly (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
The multi-colored map
As many editors have indicated, the current multi-colored map is poor and confusing. It does not show the territories of the Spanish empire with clarity or objectivity. The use of so many colors is inaccurate and unclear. It seems to portray many different empires instead of one. All other colonial empire maps in Wikipedia use one or two colors, not seven or eight: see the British, Portuguese, French, Dutch, German, Russian, and Italian empires. To solve this for once and for all I propose the red and pink map suggested earlier [46].83.50.254.101 (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As far as I have seen, the multi-colored map does not have consensus either. The talk page is filled with criticisms against it, specially that all other empire maps have 1 or 2 colors, not 5 or 6. JCRB (talk) 19:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
What irks me about both maps is the completely ridiculous double standard between Spanish claimed territories in Patagonia (not colored in at all!) and Spanish claimed territories in western North America (completely colored in!). Given that there were apparently Spanish settlements along the eastern coast of Patagonia, it seems almost certain there are territories along the Patagonian coast that were under far more effective Spanish control than North Dakota ever was. I don't see any basis for treating "Indians in the northern plains states and great basin who had probably never seen a Spanish person ever" as unproblematic Spanish subjects while "Indians in Patagonia who lived within a few miles of a Spanish fort" are unproblematically not Spanish subjects. 22:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo has a very detailed explanation of how and why he depicted things on the map the way he did, over at the map's talk page at the Commons. I think his logic on the North America vs. Patagonia thing has to do with the "strength" of the Adams-Onís Treaty, "as border stable and recognized internationally", and the treaties involving Louisiana. He has a whole section over there titled "Why not Patagonia". I do agree that it looks a bit odd for places like North Dakota to be shown as Spanish, regardless of how Patagonia is shown. Then again, I shudder at the idea of trying to map the actual limit of Spanish control in North America. Not only was it more like a vast "zone" than a firm line, as on a map, but this map has already been subjected to much criticism for showing the Spanish Empire as smaller than it should be, at least compared to other empire maps on Wikipedia. Of course, most empire maps on Wikipedia are rather poorly done. This is the best one, I think. At least it is the only one thoroughly sourced and explained. Most empire maps on Wikipedia provide no source citations at all! Anyway, take a look at Trasamundo's explanations. He's put a lot of thought into all this. Personally, I am...well at least unsure about the depiction of North America. But I'm not sure how it could be changed without generating at least as much controversy as this map has already produced. I could be convinced that both Spain and France thought of Louisiana as something much smaller than what it became after the US purchase. But as far as I know neither country ever defined Louisiana in detail, and the US interpretation of it as the Mississippi's drainage basin became the de facto definition shortly after the purchase. As far as trying to show the northern limit of actual control, I could see trying to map something like the coast of California and relatively narrow zones reaching north to New Mexico and vaguely into Texas and Arizona. But then, weren't there significant areas in Mexico itself that were not really under Spanish control? Certainly the whole American empire was a kind of patchwork of control, with numerous gaps and holes all over. Faced with the impossibility and undesirability of trying to map something like that, one needs to paint "broadly" to some degree. Is using the Adams-Onis line the best way to do this? I'm not sure. It's certainly not perfect, but it seems acceptable to me. And sure, the contrast between how North America and Patagonia are shown seems like a double standard. But the two regions have quite different histories. They are quite different in the way each were ultimately transferred from Spanish control (however weak) to the United States, on one hand, and Argentina and Chile on the other. Trasamundo's detailed explanations about why Patagonia should not be shown as part of the empire seem sound to me. Pfly (talk) 09:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo's command of English is such that it's very, very difficult to read his explanations in detail. What really strikes me, though, is that they seem to be pretty clearly original research. Even if I were to read through in close detail and agree with every argument he makes, he is still making original arguments on the basis of primary sources and the synthesis of secondary literature into new forms. Our map of the Spanish empire ought to be based on historical maps of the Spanish Empire in reliable sources; the maps found in textbooks would probably be our best bet. john k (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
My domain of English language appears in my user page, and this inconvenient does not invalidate that I want to say.
I find offensive that you throw shadows of OR and SYN to a work carefully done, especially when you have not done any comment about maps that they do not have sources at all. I have had to read abundance of sources to be able to achieve a depiction as wise as possible. When the map was almost finished I published the sources and in the same page I intervened to introduce those sources due to interventions this talk page, but if my comments were omitted then the sources are still there to justify a job and they establish explicitly what they indicate, in fact my commentaries did not justify the map for themselves, although they can be useful, the sources are what justify the map.
If I read several written sources that explicitly establish that the Portuguese empire was a chain of spaced stations and later I see a map with the African coast shaded of Portuguese empire, then, should I hit a kick to the written sources and take notice simply and exclusively of the map without knowing why is like that? The need to put sources to the map was expressed in timely fashion [47] In this talk page, we have seen diversity of maps with different extensions of colours and even contradictory between them, and it was appraised the necessity to find written sources to clarify the situation, with more reason when the written sources establish and explain explicitly historical processes but a mere map cannot, and these sources would be able to useful to improve the article too.
Probably the politics of wikipedia is to take maps randomly (from reliable sources of course), to do a mixture according to some particular criterion and later to have no idea about the reason of the depiction because no written reference has been consulted. The more surprising is when I present the map in February 2009, I put maps as this one where Patagonia does not appear as Spanish and the north limit agrees with the treaty of Adams-Onís and Louisiana. Why? the written sources has been published, very simple. Trasamundo (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The map you link to is far more generous in its southern boundary than your map. It shows the whole modern province of Buenos Aires as under Spanish control, while your maps cuts off immediately south of the city of Buenos Aires itself. john k (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The map from Princeton is wrong. The southern boundary across the Pampas was firmly established around the Salado river only at the turn of the 1830s. Previously, it was not a secured frontier, even in the vicinity of Buenos Aires. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In this map, which I consider quite accurate, pre-independence southern frontier of Buenos Aires clearly appears way north of the Salado. --IANVS (talk) 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem of the maps is that they offer different depictions and it is necessary to resort to written sources to clarify, for example this map offers another depiction, something different.
I am not going to comment anything about the southern border to clarify the issue, and this way I will avoid accusations of SYN, simply I will expose what written sources establish:
[48] Although the Spanish Royal Crown soon designated an Adelantado to explore and conquer these southern lands, the European and Creole occupation beyond the Salado River - only 200 kilometres south of Buenos Aires- took centuries. After the second and definitive foundation of Buenos Aires in 1580, almost two hundred years would elapse before the establishment of new Spanish settlements in Patagonia. [...] Difficulties in advancing the colonial frontier hence added to the strong sense of boundaries that persisted well into the nineteeth century. [49] Spanish Royal Crown could not advance the frontier south of the Buenos Aires-Mendoza-Santiago line-and, comparatively speaking, this line suffered only minor alterations during the rule of the emerging Creole governments.
[50]: Twenty years later the Crown began to construct a line of military forts across the region from northwest to southesat, thereby doubling the amount of land open to Spanish occupation. The area circunscribed by these forts, an ellipse approximately 80 to 100 miles wide by 485 miles long, ran from Arroyo del Medio to the nortwest of the city to the mouth of the Río Salado to the southeast. These forts - Rojas, Pergamino, Slato, Areco, Luján, Navarro, Lobos, Monte, Pilar de los Ranchos and Chascomús, - and their nearby rural population comprised the city's immediate hinterland. Beyond them to south and west lay hostile Indian territory. [...] While the colonial authorities were able to increase the amount of land within thier effectively controlled area, it was not until 1822 that control of the land up to the Salado passed from Indian to Spanish hands.
[51] La frontera corría a lo largo de ciento cincuenta y cinco leguas (poco menos de novecientos kilómetros), guardando Buenos Aires. La Línea de defensa estaba formada por seis fuertes guarnecidos de blandengues y cinco fortines ocupados por las milicias rurales, a ración y sin sueldo. La distribución era así: fuerte de Chascomús, guardia de Ranchos, guardia del Monte, fortín de Lobos, fortín de Navarro, guardia de Luján, fortín de Areco, guardia del Salto, guardia de Rojas, fortín Mercedes, fortín Melincué, en Santa Fe. Esta línea se mantendría hasta después de 1810. [...] A la larga, la frontera sur se estabilizó, como lo hicieron las otras del reino: en Córdoba, la marca se plantó en el río Cuarto; en Mendoza, en el valle de Uco.
[52]: Así la línea de defensa, sobre una frontera de 155 leguas, quedó integrada por seis fuertes custodiados por blandengues y cinco fortines defendidos por milicias. El cordón de guardias quedaba integrado pues, por los fuertes de Chascomús, Ranchos, Monte, Luján, Salto y Rojas, y los fortines de Lobos, Navarro, reco, Mercedes y Melincué.
[53] The southern colonial frontier linking Mendoza, San Luis and Río Cuarto east of the cordillera remained the same, but south of Buenos Aires the newly reauthoized Spanish militia negotiated peace traties with Pampas bands that allowed Spanish settlement of lands north of the Salado River.
Gentlemen, the issue at stake here is the use of many colors on the empire map. We can discuss the issue of fronteirs in Patagonia and North America, later. The question is that the Spanish Empire is the only European colonial empire in Wikipedia which is shown with multiple colors depending on when they were lost or transferred. This is absurd, not to say ridiculous or even biased. I suggest we solve this before discussing the actual extent of the empire. JCRB (talk) 23:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion the rest of the maps should improve so as to include more details/colours. Something that matters to me, regarding the current Spanish Empire map, is the indistinction between effectively controlled areas vs. undisputed claimed lands w/o effective control (Patagonia, Gran Chaco, etc.). I'd add one more colour to distinguish between this two sets of areas, so that i.e. Patagonia should be included as an undisputed claimed area w/o effective control and Gran Chaco region should be shaded in the same way, as it never was under effective colonial control. Salut, --IANVS (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
It is absurd to show one political entity, one empire, with six colors. It is confusing and gives the wrong impression. Maps usually portray different colors for different nations. That's how it is done. Coincidentally, all other maps on Wikipedia follow that custom. This article should be no different. JCRB (talk) 12:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
By "all other maps" I assume you mean all other "empire maps". But even that would not be true. See, for example, Ottoman Empire.
So the editors of the Spanish Empire are geniuses, and the editors of all the other articles are dumb? Wrong. The exception is this map. This is the odd one out. And don't tell me the history of other empires was "less complicated" than that of the Spanish Empire. JCRB (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't see anything wrong with multiple colors on the map. It makes little sense to have a map where Spanish Morocco (acquired 1912) is the same color as territories lost in the early nineteenth century. That being said, I do wonder if it might not be better to a) have the main map show the Spanish Empire in 1800 or so, when it was at its greatest territorial extent; and b) have a series of other maps in the article that show the empire's extent at other times. john k (talk) 14:56, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
I've said it before and I'll say it again - if the time that has been spent arguing about the bloody map was spent on improving the article we'd have Wikipedia7s finest article on our hands. Just try reading it, top to bottom - it's awful. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrickt10:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Look, the map needs just as much work as the article. You know that as well as I do. The red, pink and lavanda map was much better: one color for actual possessions, another for claimed territory (but not settled) and maybe a third for the Portuguese territories during the Iberian Union. Period. Another possibility is john k's suggestion: a main map at the beginning for the year 1800 (greatest territorial extent), and then a series of other maps within the article. That sounds pretty reasonable. JCRB (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
It is outrageous to read a comment as cynical as the map needs just as much work as the article when it has used more than two hundred references, and thereupon to annotate that the map lacks of objectivity or it is biased, does not the article have more than two hundred references?. The editors of the Spanish Empire are not geniuses, because it is not necessary to be a genius to distinguish and to understand any more than two colors, simply it is sufficient not to be a colour blind or to be elder than a 10-year-old kid. Arguments as messy, absurd, ridiculous, inappropriate, unclear, and other conspiracy theories are inconsistent, in fact they are not arguments but they are merely personal impressions, so it does not endure that a map that depicts different colors is poor and another map that reduces to one colour is enlightening. But all that has been challenged on several occasions, on February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, December 2009: there is nothing new under the Sun.
And with regard to that it exists a rule-custom-common practice-standard of placing the maps with a colour, then it is another falsehood, because such thing does not exist in wikipedia, some articles use a anachronous map with a colour, others with several colours, others use the extension in a certain epoch, others use animated maps. This map is not the exception of any norm, because such norm does not exist. This map has been done following the history of Spain, and not for comparison to the history of other countries, or for comparison to the maps of other articles. I do not see the relation between the depiction of different countries to depict the history of the Spanish empire. If the question is that the Spanish Empire is the only European colonial empire in Wikipedia which is shown with multiple colors, also is the only one that has contributed more than two hundred references, and in an encyclopedia which the politic of WP:V is a motive of pride, opposite to other maps, and that achievement certainly carries more weight than the quantity of colours of depiction.
The map is a mixture between anachronistic map and animated map. In timely fashion it had thought about doing an animated map, but a strong difficulty among others (as the difficult to study) was to reference adequately a serie of different maps of different epochs, nevertheless what is the importance of references when it is at stake the sacrosanct colours?. The map is a summary of the empire's extension and because of it, the map is at the beginning of the article, but also it represents the history of the Spanish empire, and as each phase of the history of the empire is depicted with a proper colour, superimposing those periods it results that combination of colours. The important thing is that the map provides an global overview anachronistic, and simultaneously a diachronic view portraying various significant moments in the history. A map with the extension of an empire in a certain epoch can be portrayed with a single colour, but this map is not like that, it is the extension of an empire but in several epochs, and to distinguish an epoch of other one is needed to use different colours.
Finally it is not necessary to be a genius to know that the issue of the colours is a smokescreen to justify another map, but for it, to justify oneself in the provocation and in the quantity of colours is a simply ineffable justification. Trasamundo (talk) 01:59, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Trasamundo, nobody is trying to justify anything behind a "smokescreen" (as you call it) of what is clearly a reasonable argument: that most other colonial empire maps have one or two colors (not five or six) and that the use of many colors seems to portray different nations or empires instead of ONE. Many editors have shown their disagreement with this multi-colored map which you keep pushing for. This argument has been explained ad nauseam here, and the links to eight different colonial maps with only one (maximum two) colors, have also been produced repeatedly.
As for the maps you have shown with more than two colors, they are clearly not relevant to the point. First, they are not the main map used in an empire article. For the main maps of the empires you mention, see: the German Empire, the German Colonial Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, all with one color. See also the Roman Empire (one color), the Muslim conquests (three colors), the Kingdom of Prussia (one color), the Athenian Empire (two colors), the Macedonian Empire (one color) and the Byzantine Empire (one color). See also the Crown of Aragon (one color), the Thai Empire (one color) and the Japanese Empire (two colors). Second, some of them are not even "empire maps". The colors used in this German map [55] do not reflect different territorial extents, but the subnational units that made up the empire. As for the map titled "Pertes territorial allemagne" [56] meaning "Territorial losses of Germany" this has nothing to do with the issue at stake, ie. imperial maps.
You have really gone out of your way to find strange maps with more than three colors to prove that the use of many colors is "common". Frankly, that's a pretty weak point. Your examples are obvious exceptions to the general rule of using one or two colors. In other cases your examples are not even empire maps. To conclude, I suggest the possibility of using this multi-colored map at a later stage in the article, if anything. As for the main map, the best option, as User:John K suggested, is one that shows the greatest territorial extent of the Spanish Empire (circa 1800). If more than one color is used, these should be of a similar tone (ie. yellow, orange and brown) like in the Muslim Conquests map with three colors. Other maps with other extents of the empire can be placed throughout the article that explain the different territorial changes. JCRB (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
The contributions of non-registered users are just as legitimate as those of registered ones. Call it "many", call it "a few", the point is a good number of editors has expressed disagreement with this map for the reasons explained above. It's about time we changed it. As suggested, a good option would be a map of the empire around the year 1800. JCRB (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Why the hell is Argentina not included in the map of the Spanish Empire? Argentina is one of the most important Spanish ex-colonies and it's not even included in the map because some people here claim that 'it didn't officialy belong to Spain'. Isn't the fact that Argentineans today speak Spanish and that many of them actually descend from Spaniards reason enough?
And why make a map depicting the period of time in which Spain LOST the colonies, who cares about that.
Following that logic, why not say when the territories were WON and not lost?
And I agree that the different colors make it seem like the map is about different empires instead of just one.
Most of the IP edits of this article since September 1 have been vandalism. There is also a long-time edit warrior on the subject of maps who constantly shows up here with different IPs. This is presumably one of his edits. (See the protection log for previous history of the map war). Is it time to restore semiprotection? EdJohnston (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
It is not vandalism to say the truth, and the truth is that the map is propagandistic and wrong, and it's done on purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 (talk) 23:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Just go and see which map is on the actual Spanish page of the Spanish Empire and oh surprise it's not the multi-colored one, because the editors of that page know it's fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.59.12.149 (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I have readded the map for Spanish America in 1620. It was removed because "Spanish American Kingdoms??-furthermore inaccurate: conquest of Sonora began c.1630, Baja California c.1680, and Nuevo Santander in the 18th century" These comments are themselves incorrect. The region of New Mexico was explored as early as the 1540s and permanent settlements established by the end of the 16th century. While it is true that Sonora was largely barren of Spanish settlement, it was still claimed by Spain. The same is true of both Baja California which was explored as early as the 1540s and Nuevo Santander which had been explored by 1600. Finally, the title is correct. The Spanish did not call their oversea possessions colonies. They used the term "reino" meaning kingdom. The proper title for New Spain was the Kingdom of New Spain. the term viceroyalty is an English phrase applied because the highest secular official of the kingdom was a viceroy. I am more than happy to adjust the map for possible inaccuracies but it is a good depiction of the extent of Spanish claims ca. 1620. Moreover, this map corresponds to the boundaries shown in other published sources. Lockhart, James; Schwartz, Stuart (1983). Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America And Brazil. Cambridge University Press. p. 255.Grin20 (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Conquest of Sonora began c.1630, Baja California c.1680, and Nuevo Santander in the 18th century" These comments are themselves incorrect. Ahem::
[59] En 1636, bajo el gobierno del virrey Candereita, se inició la conquista de la provincia que recibió el nombre de Sonora. [...] Sebastián Vizcaíno fue nombrado en 1598 gobernador de California, pero su plan para colonizar y evangelizar la península apenas tuvo efectos. El primer informe detallado de una exploración por el interior de la península es de 1683-1685. (In 1636, under the rule of the viceroy Candereita, began the conquest of the province received the name of Sonora. [...] Sebastian Vizcaino was appointed governor of California in 1598, but his plan to colonize and evangelize the peninsula just took effect. The first detailed exploration of the interior of the peninsula is 1683-1685.)
[60] Tomamos la fecha de 1748 porque en este año procede el mencionado Escandón a ocupar formalmente lo que se vino a llamar la Colonia del Nuevo Santander. (We take the date of 1748 because in this year the alluded Escandon comes to occupy formally what came to be called the Colony of Nuevo Santander.)
New Mexico?. What is concerned New Mexico with the preceding places? I have not mentioned New Mexico. El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro was in that area, it's logical that permanent settlements was there.
Nevertheless, such arguments of territories claimed and explored were rejected years ago for this article. These territories of doubtful character were refused because of its confused, interpretive character and susceptible of original interpretation (WP:NOR). Mixing claimed areas/fictional jurisdictions with colonized/ruled areas gives a poorly adjusted idea of the Spanish presence in America: the pretension does not indicate his possession. In addition, the criteria of what is claimed and what is not, and the extension of such hypothetical territory, they are quite speculative and subjective and they vary even for the same place.
If that map includes areas claimed in the north of America, it is not understandable why in the south of America such areas are not appear. The argument of explored territory is not valid: if a territory was explored then it does not develop into a territory of the Spanish empire, for example, the Spanish explored the oriental coast of the Pacific in 18th century up to Alaska, but that does not show to Alaska as a part of the Spanish empire, the same case can be applied for the Amazon.
The graphical depiction in books is not reliable. If this map appear written in a book, it does not make him superior to other maps written in books that have a different depiction. In fact, in other books, the maps are displayed with another depiction [61][62][63] with demarcations conformed to my comments, qualified without fundament as comments are themselves incorrect (!!!) Which is the criterion to choose a map over another one?: the written sources. For example, maps of the Portuguese empire are depicted forming long coastal strips along Africa and the India, nevertheless, if the written sources describe and explain the Portuguese empire composed as a chain of forts and castles, the written sources have the accuracy, although I find several maps with long coastal strips. And as the written sources they establish that the conquest of the north of New Spain was later to 1620, where the is incorrect issue?
As for the title, you have just confirmed yourself that it is a primary source. The proper title for New Spain was the Kingdom of New Spain. the term viceroyalty is an English phrase applied because the highest secular official of the kingdom was a viceroy. In the articles of wikipedia it has to use the denominations that appear in English-language reference works. If these works use the term viceroyalty largely it cannot used the minority, specialized and erudite term as common. The use the term viceroyalty has a sense: unlike the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon and the Kingdom of Navarre -which had their medieval institutions and therefore their own identity as kingdom-, the kingdoms of the Crown of Castile did not have them then, and they would be equivalent to provinces. The simple translation of reino (reyno) for kingdom hints a kind of dynastic union and the presence of specific foral institutions within the Crown of Castile, which is a total nonsense.
Definitively, it cannot place maps in this article without regarding previous discussions and agreements, established to ensure that there is no original research and to avoid turning back again the article into a bickering about speculations of what would be claimed or would not be claimed territory, and its extension, since any text can justify claims up to what someone wishes. When that map adjusts to the approximate extent of the territories controlled/ruled by the Hispanic monarchy (Portugal included) in 1620, or switch to a later date that coincides with those limits or other more accurate, then such map will be acceptable. Trasamundo (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
The topic of maps of New Spain reminds me—the main map on the New Spain page, in the infobox, is particularly bad (File:New Spain.svg). It shows "claims" and, by implication, "controlled territory" in an odd and apparently arbitrary way. I wrote about it a while ago at Talk:New Spain#The map and its caption are confused. I've thought about working on new maps for this and other similar pages, but have other priorities. Given this discussion here now, I thought I'd mention it. The New Spain map is an SVG remake of an older PNG map, [64]. On its Commons page linked above it says the map was "built from" this map. Check out that map's talk page, where its accuracy is much disputed. Anyway, my point is just to say that the main map on the New Spain page is in much need of an improved replacement. Pfly (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. Indeed the map is very bizarre, it is an exemplification of territories claimed in a subjective way. I'll see what I can do. The problem is not only for America but also for the Philippines. Trasamundo (talk) 22:35, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
A belated thanks, Trasamundo! The more I look at maps on Wikipedia—not just relating to Spain but mostly historical nonetheless—the more I find them troublesome. I've tagged a few maps at the Commons for accuracy disputes, but in general I think we all should get a little more serious about holding Commons maps to the same standards of reliable sources and verifiability as we mostly do on Wikipedia. A couple of maps I recently tagged: [65], Spanish Empire in 1640 at the latest shown way too large (and that map is used on many many Wikipedia pages), also [66], which shows "territory" in 1750, likely too much for Spain but also way too much for Russia in 1750! Anyway, thanks for your New Spain map, Trasamundo. Pfly (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
"God is Spanish" (1596–1626)
I'm wondering if this is really a good heading for this time period. If a reading is skimming through the piece, they may assume that the Spanish Empire had no flaws during this time, especially if they had already read the article about Spain's Golden Age. This was also a time where the Spanish had to deal with the realization that they had their own agency and in some cases, they could not rely on God to take care of them. Many would argue that after the Armada was defeated by the English, Spain went into a decline. Not only did they lose the prestige that they had once carried, but from this time on, they had stretched their resources so far, that it was about to snap and their empire would soon shrink. Before too long the Portuguese would disappear as well as colonies in the Americas. Spartemis (talk) 06:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC)Spartemis
I would completely agree with you when it comes to the heading. After the defeat of the Spanish armada people became much more secular. Although the armada was not destroyed people began to understand that the actions of humans had a much greater effect than divine intervention would. This change to thought had a lot of Spain rethinking its beliefs and if God supported Spain's cause or not. However, I think that to say Spain was in decline would be untrue. It's true that Spain was going through a time of many problems, but that doesn't mean that it was in decline. A period of adaptation would be a better way to describe this time in Spain's life. All countries have problems at one point and to say that Spain was declining might be overstating matters. Voitik2 (talk) 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
File:Mexico-city-cathedral.jpg Nominated for Deletion
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
I propose that a new map should be found for the main map image for the article. I propose this because it includes "territories of the Iberian Union". The Iberian Union was a personal union, not an official unification of the two kingdoms. This being said, the Portuguese territory and her colonies were never part of the Spanish empire, they were the Portuguese empire. They both shared a king, for a time, but that did not make the Portuguese empire a part of the Spanish empire, but they were run side-by-side. The current map is misleading. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 12:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Our readers are not idiots and the legend of the map is quite clear that the dark blue areas are the Portuguese territories during the Iberian Union. Readers who want more details will just follow the internal link. You've just replaced a very detailed map by this not so detailed map which ironically also includes the Portuguese territories and then by this one which carries only a tiny fraction of the information that was there before. And all this for Portuguese pride? Come on... By the way, did you notice that the Portuguese Wikipedia uses that very same map for pt:Império Espanhol? Pichpich (talk) 04:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Who gives a care what Pt.wiki says!? Everyone brings up what is on pt.wiki, well we are on en.wiki! And this is not Portugese pride, could it be Im actually trying to work for improvement? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:12, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
p.s. If you want to bring in other wikipedias, Spanish wikipedia (which would be the wikipedia to bring in for this article, if one was to bring in another wikipedia, which I dont think one should) they use:
There was a giant debate over the map on the Spanish Wikipedia a few years ago and that map was finally chosen. It's too bad, I think, because it is blatantly wrong in many ways. That map's Commons page explains that the color red indicates "Spanish posessions" and the color pink "claimed territories and posessions with de jure authority". It does not explain what exactly is meant by "possession" or "de jure authority". Presumably red areas were at some point under de facto Spanish administration while pink areas were Spanish "by law" (de jure). But whatever is meant the way North America is depicted is laughable. The red color extends to areas like present day North Dakota and Montana, where Spaniards never went, let alone administrated. The entire west coast is shown as red, up to and beyond Vancouver Island and including all of the Puget Sound region. Apart from Nootka Sound and, arguably, very briefly, Neah Bay, Spain never "possessed" any of this. The pink areas of "claimed territories and possessions with de jure authority" is even more problematic—the way the Great Basin and a coastal zone north to about Cape Saint Elias is shown as pink. Spainish claims to northern North America were never explicitly limited to any particular region. The entire continent was claimed and only given up as necessary in various treaties. Spanish claims to the entirety of western North America were not limited until the 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty. Spain performed rites of possession as far as Unalaska Island, which gave them a very weak de jure claim to the entire coast south of the Bering Sea. They did not, however, perform any such ceremonies in Idaho or the British Columbia interior. Yet these areas are shown as pink on this map! In short, that map is a disaster of original research. Pfly (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The map I believe is the most correct is this one:
Better, but still not as good as the one already being used on this page, which not only shows things like Nootka Sound but is impeccably sourced. I think maps, like articles, ought to cite sources. Pfly (talk) 07:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The one currently used is best because it's more detailed. Instead of imposing one interpretation of what it means to possess, control, have authority over or whatnot, it gives a detailed map of all areas that one might conceivably consider part of the Spanish Empire and makes chronological as well as political distinctions. It's the richest of these maps. Pichpich (talk) 11:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact of beginning a post to affirm without doubt that this map is misleading is like to going to light a factory of light bulb, with a candle, as if no one had conceived such affirmation.
Well, three years ago, after bloody discussions, the question of Portuguese empire was answered and clarified as is shown in the archive of this talk page. There was a consensus to include it inside the article, and even it was debated the most exact words to using inside the article. As soon as there was included the question of the Portuguese empire inside the article, it was developed (by myself) a map for this article accordingly. Precisely to avoid misunderstandings and to offer explanations of different beliefs, the sources of the depiction appears with the map. And therefor, as the answers were written some years ago, I don't hope to add anything more, except my gratefulness to the interventions. Trasamundo (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Either map proposed here by Cristiano Tomas is better than the current map. It has a lot of information but it's not adequate for the lede. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.23.79.160 (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
It has been suggested that we discuss the issue of the map here in the Talk Page. Well, here it is. The point is six colors is confusing and lacks uniformity. It is also too much detail for the introduction. Such a map should go somewhere else in the article. The lede map should present a general overview of all territories of the empire in one color (in one or two tones) not six, just like most other empire maps.
This has already been discussed at great length on many occasions. See the section above, "The multi-colored map", and archived talks such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spanish_Empire/Archive_3#Too_many_colors, among others. The points you raise have been addressed in great detail. I don't mean to be dismissive, but I also don't want to repeat the same arguments over and over and over. Pfly (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, I don't know what those arguments could have been but it is ridiculous to have such a colorful map for the introduction, no offense. That degree of detail must go somewhere else in the article. See the British Empire map, the Portuguese empire map, the French empire map, etcetera etcetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.20.30 (talk) 09:16, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
The Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism. The flag of spanish armies commonly used the coats-of-arms of the "king" or the "place", not the Burgundy cross flag alone. Much more important, ¡Spanish empire is not an Army or military unit!.--Santos30 (talk) 10:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
To say that the cross of Burgundy is an emblem of the Carlism is like saying that the swastika is the emblem of the Germany Nazi, and what is it that it demonstrates? did not those emblems have previous uses? The cross of Burgundy originated in the House of Burgundy, which the Spanish kings were successors.
The Cross of Burgundy was the military emblem Spanish armies since the sixteenth century:
[67] Se ve por primera vez en España, el símbolo comun de la Cruz de Borgoña o aspa de San Andrés (troncos rugosos en los que fue crucificado). Este signo distintivo pasaría de inmediato, y por varios siglos, a nuestras banderas...
[68] solían llevar de antiguo la cruz de san Andrés o Cruz de Borgoña, que caracterizó a los tercios españoles y que los Borbones respetaron en sus regimientos.
[69] La cruz de Borgoña o de San Andrés, de oro o plata sobre fondo negro primero, y luego rojo sobre amarillo o blanco, comenzó a ser usada más tarde por las tropas de su hijo Carlos I rey de España y V como rey de Alemania. En 1525, tremoló en la batalla de Pavía, combate entre las tropas imperiales de carlos I de España y V de Alemania y las del rey de Francia Francisco I, durante la guerra entre España y Francia por la supremacía en Italia, y desde allí se convirtió en un símbolo fundamental de la simbología española.
[70] King Philip V's 1707 Ordinance regulating the design of standards retained the Cross ogf Burgundy.
[71] Se trataba de la conocida Aspa Roja de San Andrés o Cruz de Borgoña, que era y siguió siendo el emblema archiconocido de las tropas españolas durante siglos.
[72] Doña Juana agregó a sus armas el Aspa de Borgoña, signo e insignia de la Casa de su marido, por su madre, y que a partir de entonces toma estado y continúa durante siglos siendo emblema de nuestra patria.
Throughout the centuries there were several flags and emblems, but if there was one who identified the Spanish power and Spanish presence throughout his empire, not only in America but also in Europe and Oceania, it was the emblem of the cross of Burgundy.
It should not be understood as the flag of the Empire, but as the most representative and identifying flag of a historical epoch. Spanish empire is not an Army or military unit but the article essentially deals with conflicts, military campaigns and wars. The military importance has a preponderance that I have not given it, but it appears in the same article, and therefore the military emblem reflects and is fully consistent with the actual warlike content of the article, as the most representative image. Well now, if the point is that the meaning of the flag can be confusing then the footnotes should be used to make clear that it is a military emblem, the way is not the suppression. Trasamundo (talk) 12:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I do not understand this addition. [73] It does not fit within the sense and meaning both of the sentence and the paragraph. One thing is referencing, and other one is to put the sources anywhere and anyway, ignoring the sense of pre-existing text. Trasamundo (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Wow Wikipedia:No original research !. Do not lost my time and yours, put references. Those Ref in spanish do not demonstrate that you say. Put a published source, not your ideas. It is clear that Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism and a late military spaniard flag. Americas and Philippines, almost all of the map of spanish empire (in red), was discover and conquer under the flag of the crown of Castile, not Burgundy cross. But most important is an article of Spanish empire, not a military unit as the "Tercios" in your ref. --Santos30 (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
[74]At every island Colon came to, as he boldly claims in his Journal, he went through an elaborate ceremony of taking "possession" of the land and planting the flag of Castile and Leon.
[75]It was certainly not the least dramatic moment in the history of early America when Balboa, in a frenzy of joy, seized the flag of Castile, and, holding it aloft, plunged his body into the waters of the ocean, claiming it for his King.
[76]Slashing with his sword, under the red flag of Castile and Leon, Hernan Cortes leads one of his firts attacks against mexican indians coastal.
[77]The monarchy in Castile took real jurisdictional authority over Mexico Tenochtitlan.
If after placing several references to publications you are able to say that they are not publicacions but my ideas. If these references indicate the use at that time of the cross of Burgundy had nothing to do with the Carlists, you are able to say that It is clear that Burgundy cross is a flag of Carlism, and if these same references indicate that its use dates since the sixteenth century you are able to say that a late military spaniard flag. If after explaining previously the placement of that military flag are not like the banner of the Spanish empire, but as the most representative and the most continuous used during a long historical period, which agrees with the warlike content of the article, and yet I tried to advance a solution , but you are able to repeat again and again the same old story, then I understand that this should be WP:DISRUPT and WP:GAME, which worsens with WP:CANVASS[80], and WP:EDITWARRING.
But I will debunk some misconceptions:
No one denies that the ultamarine possessions in America, Asia and Oceania, belonged to the Crown of Castile. But the Spanish empire were not only those overseas possessions, as it appears in the article: the European and Mediterranean territories had their role within the empire, did they belong these territories to the crown of Castile?
It did not exist the flag of the crown of Castile, it was the banner of the king, as king of Castile obviously, but throughout the centuries the king's banner varied with the kings, and they existed variants, complete and abbreviated. Since I know what causes this discussion I guess you've seen the sources of royal proósito standard in America in Spanish Wikipedia. The historical period of the article goes beyond the discovery and colonization of America, but still, the conquerors carried the royal standard:
[82] unfurled with imposing ceremony the royal standard of Castile and Leon
However, although it is interesting that the American territories belonged to Castile, this article does not deal simply with America, but throughout the empire, and that includes other areas not subject to the crown of Castile, areas that had more important for the Spanish rulers than the entire American continent.
The fact is that over several centuries, if there is a symbol that appears and remained throughout the whole empire, not only in Indies, and that identifies the Spanish presence and power, it is a Spanish military emblem that shows the Cross of Burgundy as I referenced earlier, but I can add more:
[83] The Burgundian emblems thus came to be among those most prominently displayed by the Habsburgs of both Spain and Austria, and after the War of the Spanish Succession by the Bourbon kings of Spain.
[84] The Spanish Cross of Burgundy flag, a red St.Andrews cross on a white field, was the next flag to fly over Louisiana.
[85] The Spanish and Dutch vessels may be distinguished by their flags — the former bearing the cross of Burgundy, the St. Andrew's cross ' raguly,' the latter a flag with stripes of red, white and blue horizontally.
You are mistaken Trasamundo. The Flag of Castile and León is for the Kingdom (territory), not for the king (person). Some of the King's blazon have a cross of Burgundy, but cross of Burgundy never appear in the flag of the Castile. Burgundy is a flag of military units, King's blazon or Carlism.
You put a several references to publications but any of this talk about a flag of Spanish empire. The last talk about vessels, Louisiana and a kings's blazon. But any of your references say nothing about a flag of Spanish Empire. And who say that "other areas had more important" -than Americas and Spanish East Indies-?, who? you?. Your other references in spanish do not demonstrate that you say in english (neither in spanish). Put a published source, not your ideas. Citation needed: burgundy was a flag of Spanish empire or something, clear. Or delete the flag of Carlism, Tercio or King's blazon.--Santos30 (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
The European and Mediterranean territories had their role within the empire, but the most important territory was Castile.
[86]Castile, by far the most important component of the Spanish Empire.
[87]the -flag- one displayed by the Carlists contained the X-shaped Cross of Burgundy.
This discussion make me see that your map Trasamundo is wrong too: where are the kingdoms of Spain in your map?!.--Santos30 (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
If during the Ancien Régime existed a flag of the Kingdom of Castile as kingdom, in Wikipedia in Spanish they will be pleased to know those references, they will be also delighted to see how would be the so-called flag of the kingdom which is not mentioned in the laws of Indies. In wikipedia in Spanish wait several days with this same issue.
I would like to know where I have said that the banner with the cross of Burgundy is the flag of the Spanish empire. I would like to know where I have said that the cross of Burgundy was used in the royal arms as king of Castile. I said that is the cross of Burgundy is more representative and more used continuously, and it is entirely consistent to illustrate the content of the article to place in the template. The sources I have provided above show its importance, relevance and prominent use in the sixteenth, seventeenth and eighteenth centuries on land and at sea. In addition, the Tercios were dissolved in 1704, and the cross of Burgundy continued to be used later. Since the infobox country does not prevent putting an relevant banner in the absence of one official, the placement of the cross of Burgundy is justified by sources that accredit its relevance and validity, and for the use of the template.
Another response to a statement that I don't have done. I never said that Castilla was not important, I said that European areas that had more important for the Spanish rulers than the entire American continent, and it was thus effectively [88]: Every war in Europe cast the Spanish Crown into desperate straits and forced it to resort to ever more counterproductive and hasty methods of collecting revenues. Moreover, Spain's lack of funds made her incapable of helping the colonies, especially the minor ones, so that all local emergencies had to be met out of local funds. In addition, in any history of Spain it can see the importance that Spanish policy gave European possessions instead of the American ones. Trasamundo (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo you say "more representative", but citation needed. Can you put or not a published source about Burgundy as a flag Spanish Empire, yes or not?.--Santos30 (talk) 23:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
[89] Title:Carlism and Crisis in Spain 1931–1939. You can see in the COVER the cross of Burgundy. I never see it in a COVER of a book of Spanish Empire.--Santos30 (talk) 00:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
No one denies that the cross of Burgundy was a Carlist symbol, but that has nothing to do with that the cross was also used by the Dukes of Burgundy, and it was commonly used in the Spanish Empire.
[90] The viceregal banner of Mexico that royalists flew was white with a red Burgundy cross. This was the flag of the Spanish Bourbon monarchs and was common to Spain's Latin American colonies
[91] Royal standard taken by the French at the capture of Cartagena de Indias in 1697. This elaborately flown on feast days and other formal occasions, the ordinary standard usually being white with the red ragged cross of Burgundy.
[92] Cross of Burgundy - 17th-century name for the Spanish flag, which had long featured a red raguly saltire cross on a white blackground, ever since the 1530 coronation of Spain's Hapsburg monarch Charles V as Holy Roman Emperor.
[93] The beautiful old flag of Burgundy -a red St Andrew's Saltire raguly- was the emblem of the Knights of the Golden Fleece, one of Europe's most illustrious orders of chivaldry. It is little known by modern Burgundians but in its day, because of dynastic links, this flag has also flown over Spain and its former dominions, including Belgium and Latin America.
To establish that due to being a symbol of the Carlist party, the cross of Burgundy could not be used in the Spanish empire is not an original research, it is an original invention. Trasamundo (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
After a long discussion about your original research of Burgundy flag you Trasamundo can not give a published source with citation for Spanish Empire. I give very clear citation and picture for Spanish Empire flag:
[94]The Spanish Empire flag. This is the royal standard of Carlos V which appeared at the head of every band of Spanish explorers, as Spain had no national flag at the time. The field is white and bears the arms of Castile and Leon, with the royal crown at the top of the shield and around it the collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece. At a point near Mugu Lagoon, in Ventura County, on October 10, 1542, Juan Rodriguez Cabrilo raised the flag of the Spanish Empire and took possession of California for Spain.
[95]Spanish was brought to the new world by explorers who colonized the new territories under Spanish flag for Spanish Empire.
I must be a joke to show this textbook for students of the subject of Spanish language as a historical source.
As for the journal of the military department of the State of California, I see on page 1: The Spanish National Ensign 1785-1822 which is the first mistake because that that is the national flag of Spain established by decree of Queen Elizabeth II the 13 October 1843. As for the alleged royal standard of Charles V first note that it doesn't say standard of the kingdom of Castile but royal standard, secondly it only indicates that it is for the explorers but the Spanish empire spans over the period of conquest of America. As for the mistakes of the alleged royal standard of Charles V: 1-the oval coat of arms were fashionable in the eighteenth century, 2-The banner is white, symbol of the French Bourbon dynasty imported to Spain by Philip V in the eighteenth century, and 3-surrounding the shield there is two collars, the exterior is that of the Order of the Golden Fleece, and the interior that of the Order of the Holy Spirit, this latter collar was worn by the Spanish sovereigns of the Bourbon dynasty. In conclusion, that alleged royal standard of Charles V belongs to the eighteenth century and not to Charles V which would have the Double-headed eagle. Unfortunately for you, everyone does not have your vexillologic knowledge to pass anything as true.
Whether you like it or not, whereas you only focus on explorers and conquerors, I have given more than enough evidence of continued use of the cross of burgundy throughout the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth centuries against your invention of an exclusive Carlist symbol, I have quoted sources about its use on land and sea, I have demonstrated its use as ordinary and common and and it was used not only in the New World (as also it appears here [96] the Spanish cross of Burgundy flag flew over Span's colonial empire in the New World) but it flown over Spain and its former dominions, including Belgium and Latin America.Trasamundo (talk) 12:15, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Spanish empire is not by any european title because The kings of Spain on 1556 lost the title of Emperor (Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor). But we have a clear evidence that flag of Castile-Leon is the spanish flag of Age of Discovery, the flag of Spanish empire from Americas to Philipinas. All the flags of spanish conquerors and explorers have the same simbol of the kingdom Castile-Leon alone, a simbol of the Kings of Spain that could be alone in their flags. Furthermore, the simbol of Castile-Leon alone is the first national spanish flag.
For the contrary, there are not any evidence to use the cross of burgundy alone for Spanish Empire. Cross of Burgundy is a militar blazon to add for the flags of spanish military units or the flags of the kings. But this flags have others simbols: personal (as Austrias, Bourbons), or cities (as Castile, Aragon), armies, etc. It is rare the cross of Burgundy alone in Spanish flags. Cross of Burgundy alone is a simbol of Carlism, and a simbol in Francoist Spain, and, very important, a simbol of Nazi people of (SS organization).
We can not use military or fascist simbol (cross burgundy alone) as a flag for Spanish empire. You Trasamundo, along this discussion can not give a published source with citation for Spanish empire. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, but I think it is better the simbol of Castile-Leon, because it was: the main Kingdom of Spain, the kingdoms of Americas and Asia, and the first national flag of Spain.
Actually, the mean flag in Christopher Columbus' expedition was white with a green cross and the letters "F (ernando)" and Y(sabel)": "The Admiral got out the royal flag, and the captains the two flags of the Green Cross, that the Admiral had hoisted in all the ships as a sign with an 'F' (Ferdinand) and a 'Y' (Ysabel). At the top of each letter was its crown, one on one head of the †, and the other on the other". [98]. You can see this flag over here: "Bandera Capitana del Almirante de Castilla (1492)".
First that all, we must remember that the current concept of flag was developed until the late eighteenth century. Anyway:
1) "A very popular Spanish flag (Fig. 3), reflecting the claim of the kings of Spain to the Duchy of Burgundy, was the raguly saltire known as the cross of Burgundy, red on a white field. This flag, with or without the arms of the Spanish Empire in the..." [99]
2) The banner with red Burgundy cross was a familiar sight during the last century of Spanish rule in Latin America. On each arm is the crest of Fernand and Isabella. [100]
3) The south wall of Castillo San Marcos, with the San Agustin bastion to the rear featuring the pre-1785 Spanish flag, the red ragged cross of Burgundy on a white field. [101]
4) The fort had not yet been captured as Spain's white flag with the red ragged cross of Burgundy is flying over it. [102]
5) ..."the ordinary standard usually being white with the red ragged cross of Burgundy". [103]
6) "La bandera roja y gualada: orígenes e historia" at Revista Internacional de Protocolo number 9, page 51 [104]:
Señala Rodríguez Lizcano que las banderas que prevalecen en España son las siguientes: siglos XV y XVI: blanca y Cruz Roja de San Andrés; siglo XVII, primera mitad: rojas; siglo XVII, segunda mitad: colores diversos y Cruz de Borgoña; siglo XVIII: blancas con la Cruz de Borgoña.
Lizcano Rodriguez notes that prevailing in Spain flags are: XV and XVI centuries: White and Red Cross of St. Andrew, XVII century, first half: red; XVII century, second half: different colors and Cross of Burgundy; XVIII century: white with the Cross of Burgundy.
[107] Flags of the World (ed.):The Burgundy cross,... used by Spain, especially at sea, for many years. In much more recent times, it was used by the Carlists (Requetés) during the Spanish Civil War and afterwards, and by the Traditionalist Party (Partido Tradicionalista) during the post-Franco years.
By defintion in the introduction: The Spanish Empire (Spanish: Imperio Español) comprised territories and colonies administered by Spain in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia and Oceania. It originated during the Age of Exploration and was one of the first global empires. Then, Spanish empire is not the Naval, Army, or fortification or any military unit of Spain. Again and again, the "Spanish empire" needs a flag, and by definition it is the territories and colonies (those include the kingdoms of Spain missing in Trasamundo's map). Spanish empire is not the idea of Trasamundo: "Spanish power against their opponents" (with the military flag of cross of burgundy). --Santos30 (talk) 10:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, it happens. And so? Have you ever read The Da Vinci Code or the historical and modern uses of the Cross of Burgundy flag? You can take a look to the Flag of Alabama → (...Furthermore, Alabama's legislation describes its red saltire as St. Andrew's cross...the saltire of the Alabama's flag most closely resembles the saltire of the flag of Florida, which has its heritage in the Spanish Cross of Burgundy...) or to the Flag of Florida → (...the Burgundian saltire was used in Florida to represent collective Spanish sovereignty between 1513 and 1821...).
"The saltire design, known as the Cross of Burgundy, was a symbol of Philip I, Duke of Burgundy and father of Charles I, who became Spain's king in 1516. Variants of the Burgundy cross flag- including some versions with smooth-edged saltires- became widely used by the Spanish military on both land and sea. This is the principal flag that flew over Spain's colonial empire in the New World until 1785". [108]
"Cross of Burgundy Flag is the principal flag that flew over Spain's colonial empire in the New World until 1785, when a new flag was adopted (the red-yellow flag)" [109].
"In Puerto Rico, the “Regimiento Fijo,” the local infantry regiment that saw action during the British invasion of Puerto Rico in 1798, the Franco-Spanish war of 1809 and the war of 1812 in Louisiana, flew this flag. The regiment was disbanded in 1815 by King Fernando VII. The flag is still flown at San Felipe del Morro and San Cristóbal Castles in San Juan as a tribute to this regiment". [110]
The cross of Burgundy was the first real symbol that was adopted to represent Spain in the 15th century. Although foreign to the people at that time the Cross was to become the symbol of the Spanish in the years to come. It was Philip the Handsome and his wife that got the Cross of Burgundy into notice by adopting it as the national symbol of Spain. The design of the flag features red roughly pruned knotted branches that are crossed. These are situated on top of a white background and seek to represent the crucifixion of Saint Andrew. There was a time period when the Coat of Burgundy became the secondary flag for Spain as the coat of arms one was taken as the national identity. It was brought back into action by the Carlists...The cross of Burgundy also appeared as the symbol of Spain on the international plain. Not only was it used as the symbol of Spain during wars and expeditions it was also the symbol of the country during its years of colonization of the Americas...The colonial period for Spain also saw the use of the Cross of Burgundy as it was taken as the flag of the viceroyalties of the new world. The nations that had once become part of the Spanish Empire due to the colonization expeditions of Spain now consider the Cross of Burgundy flag to be part of their historical heritage. [111]
"..imported to Spain by the House of Austria and abundantly used in the flagship of Charles I and later Spanish kings this cross became the symbol typical Spanish military and was forced emblem on the flags of military use until the fall of the monarchy in 1931... military use dates back to Austria, linked to the House of Burgundy, becoming the significant symbol of the Hispanic tradition...Today, as a support, is incorporated into the personal weapons of Juan Carlos I of Spain. [112]Jaontiveros (talk) 13:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
You have not added anything new. There are better examples of the flag of Castile-Leon over north America.
[113] Flag of Castile-leon in the history of the flag of US.
[114] Flag of Castile-leon in the history of the flag of Luisiana.
[115] Flag of Castile-leon in the history of the flag of Texas.
Answering your question ("Well, it happens. And so?"): the cross of Burgundy is an element carried to Spain after the discovery and conquest of America. Philip the Handsome carried to Spain the cross of burgundy with the flag of his guard. Then you are mistaken, cross of burgundy is one element of spanish flags and coat of arms, accessory, because the spanish flags have a lot of elements. In your example, the cross is one element of the Coat of arms of the King of Spain (accessory), but the flags and coat of arms have a lot of elements! (the main is the four quarters with the first is CASTILE, the most important element blazoned). Never I see the cross of burgundy (alone) as simbol of the Kings of Spain, and never in the military units of Spain (cross alone). Never alone. The cross of burgundy (alone) never was a flag of Spanish empire. Any published source has said. But the books show that the red cross of Burgundy over a white flag is a simbol of Carlism or fascistRequetés on Francoist Spain.
"After the discovery and conquest of America"? Sorry, but you are wrong: Philp the Handsome died at 1506 and his son Carlos I used the Cross of Burgundy, then...Hernán Cortés conquered Tenochtitlan in 1519, Alvarado began the conquest of Guatemala in 1524, Pizarro conquered the Inca Empire in 1532, Valdivia conquered Chile in 1541, and Montejo conquered Yucatán in 1546. The Spanish Empire was consolidated in the 16th century.
"Never in military units of Spain (cross alone)"? Well, it depends...each battalion could identify their own flag but always with the cross of Burgundy as a basic element: "Royal Ordinance 1707: "It is my will that every body bring the flag with the white Colonel Cross of Burgundy, in the style of my troops, I sent add two castles and two lions ..."; "Royal Ordinance 1728: In each battalion of our troops will have three flags ... the Colonel will be white with the coat of our royal arms and the other white with the cross of Burgundy, and in some and others may be put on the tips of the corners weapons kingdoms and provinces where they have the name, or particular currencies would have had or used by old ..." [116]. So, in New Spain, the flag of the Ayuntamiento de la Ciudad de México had a Cross or Burgundy as main element [117]. Same thing with the Flag of Valdivia (Chile), or Chuquisaca Department (Bolivia), the First Board of Governors in Quito (Perú), etc. You can take a look to several options with the Cross of Burgundy but without lions and castles over here or here.
I told you before: "the current concept of flag was developed until the late eighteenth century", so, the Flag of Spain (roja y gualda/red and yellow) that identifies the country was official up to October 13, 1843, when the Spanish Empire was almost broken. Jaontiveros (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your contributions Jaontiveros and I am glad because in this case we agree. As it has been said by Jaontiveros and myself the first national flag of Spain was established in 1843.
The only thing that supports the use of quartering of castles and lions is simply a particular belief based on a simple deduction: as the new world was included to the Crown of Castile then the flag of the Spanish empire is the kingdom of Castile.
Based on this deduction the kingdom of Navarre, which belonged to the Crown of Castile would have been the quartering of castles and lions.
The laws of Indies do not refer to speak about either the quartering of castles and lions or the flag of Castile-Leon but the royal standard.
The fact that the Crown of Castile was the main one, was due to its political, military and economic weight. But the using this argument of own convenience to apply it to the coat of arms and arbitrarily to select an item from the shield (but the flags and coat of arms have a lot of elements! (the main is the four quarters with the first is CASTILE, the most important element blazoned) is simply comical.
But that doesn't deny that quartering of castles and lions was used as shortened royal arms. Following this request in commons I discern that Santos30 had made a personal deduction the establishs the quartering of castles and lions of the Charles II's royal banner of Medina del Campo is valid for all, (For the contrary, the element of Castile-Leon (alone) was a simbol of the main Kingdom of Spain and ultramar kingdoms and colonies of Spanish empire) without considering that there was a variety of royal standards, without going too far the forementioned king Charles II's royal standard of Cartagena de Indias bears the whole armorial [120].
In Wikipedia in Spanish are waiting for being amazing with those sources which show that symbols of medieval crown of Castile spread for ever and ever in Spanish America, without regard to the specific use the royal standard by conquerors merely. It's simple indicate the specific use of the quartering of castles and lions at this point and to deduct for convenience an use indefinitely.
Beyond the use in particular times and places from a variety of royal emblems, after all the Spanish empire also included European domains not inclued in the crown of Castile, which were the center of Spanish politics for two centuries as it is dealed with extensively in the article, while was left to his fate the defense of the American territories, as I quoted above.
While all that is shown is a hodgepodge of deductions about the quartering of castles and lions, Jaontiveros and myself have shown the relevance of the cross of burgundy that fully justify their inclusion and permanence in the infobox. The infobox country does not require that be included official emblems. Taking as an example the article France, there it appears an unofficial emblem as a substitute of the coat of arms. There is no official emblem for the country or the Republic of France, but the emblem that appears in the article is to identify France with respect to other nations, and this is equivalent to the cross of Burgundy and the Spanish empire. And since the Spanish empire as such, was not a official entity with more reason there isn't any obligation to employ an official emblem, but one emblem that had significance for its identificative use. Despite taking an symbol to represent and identify the French Republic without being official, in the article of France has not been any kind of discussion about it. In doubt no flag for Spanish Empire, does not rule here because the only doubt is a hodgepodge of beliefs and personal deductions. Trasamundo (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
PS: This addition is a patch that breaks the sense of what is being read in that paragraph and the next paragraph. That reference and the information is already included within the article. The article should have an encyclopedic writing and this criterion is above of placing in the lead section an forced adding to justify the claim of putting a Castilian flag in the infobox. Trasamundo (talk) 23:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Trasamundo the doubt is because there are not any published source for use the carlist flag in Spanish Empire.
Facts:
No historic flag of Spanish Empire exist. Never any reference has said that "Red Cross burgundy+white flag" was a flag of Spanish empire.
The references shows that Cross of burgundy is one element, only one element, of military flags and Kings coat of arms of Spain. But there are a lot of elements blazoned in those flags. Cross of burgundy, regulated on 1700, never never shows as one element red alone with white flag as Fascist flag.
Castile and Lion is a symbol of the main kingdom of Spain and ultramar kingdoms and colonies of America and Asia in the Spanish empire. Castile and Lion is the first national flag of Spain (1785), Castile and Lion is the main element of Coat of arms of Spain today in the present (kingdom of Castile in the first quarter -and not any cross of burgundy-).
No reason to put a flag of Carlism or Francoist Spain (Red cross burgundy in a white flag) in this article. Cross of Burgundy element must to be with other elements to be a historic flag. Other color for the flag and other elements (the main element of Spain is Castile-Lion).
--Santos30 (talk) 10:34, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
We have already said, not one, but several times that the present idea of a flag, in order to represent a State, began in the late eighteenth century. The first flags to represent a country were the United States and France flags. Of course, during the Spanish Empire ¿1492-1898? there were many coats of arms, blazons, naval ensigns (pabellón naval), infantry flags, militia flags, Tercios division flags (Spanish troops), etc. The puropose of this discussion is to define the most representative, the most used or the most popular one (from 1492 until 1898). I have already shown some references that mention the Cross of Burgundy (St. Andrews' cross or saltires) like a widely used flag by Spanish armies around the world in the navy, infantry, forts, Tercios division, militia, and even used for very important people at the viceroyalties.[126], [127], p.23
Well, it seems that you are very worried about the Carlism and Fascism. That persistent argument is irrelevant, let's see in this way: the pentacle is a symbol used by Satanists or Neopagans, so what? pentacle was a Christian symbol too, medieval Chrsitians believed that symbolizes the five wounds of Christ. Even more, 4000 years before Christ this symbol had been used as a cult of nature (the planet Venus traces a perfect pentacle on its ecliptic every eight years). Similar story with the swastika, you don't need to go so far, just read the article at Wikipedia.
You showed this reference about Nazis Unit using the Cross of Burgundy, well if you read the page 5 you will find the reason. Carlists used the Cross of Burgundy like an emblem of the monarchist causep.31, but that doesn't change that the Cross of Burgundy or St. Andrew was widely used during the Spanish Empire [128].
Before the Habsburg, 35 families in Castile and 32 families in Navarre used the Cross of Burgundy in theirs coats since the Middle Age p.23, later on Philp the Handsome, Carlos I and many kings more.
I presume at this point, you have already read in many books that the Cross of Burgundy flag was first used by the soldiers in the battle of Pavía (1525) [129][130]. By the way, Hernán Cortés used this banner [131], remember they were religious men [132], on the other hand the Spanish Navy used the Cross of Burgundy flag by several years [133][134][135].
The Cross of Burgundy respresents the ancient royal family in the present Coat of arms of the King of Spain. Is a symbol of the ancestors of the king, the Catholic monarchs of Spain. Today, you can find the Cross of Burgundy in the Spanish Air Force, like a fin flash in the tail of the airplanes [136] or in the coat of arms of some brigades [137], [138].
No, Jaontiveros you are mistaken. The coat of army of king Juan Carlos I of Spain was decided by Francisco Franco on 1971. It have the cross of burgundy (symbol of Carlism) and the yoke and arrows (symbol of Falange) as symbols of "Movimiento Nacional" herehere, here, here.
Jaontiveros beautiful picture of the flag of Hernán Cortés. Thank you very much!. This is one side of the flag, the other is the coat of armas of Castile-Lion you can read here
To rescue the symbol of burgundy, you must to avoid the white flag (flag of carlism). Alternative 1-symbol cross of burgundy without flag (3 options in gallery), 2-another option is the first flag of Spain 1785 (British Empire uses a flag of 1801).
Seeing that this discussion does not lead anywhere, I am going to clarify the matter:
Although at no time it hs been said that the flag of the cross of Burgundy is the flag of the Spanish empire, simply that it was the most representative and identificative of the Spanish Empire, however, Santos30 couldn't care less what it has been said, and he continues to put words into someone else's mouth.
It has been demonstrated its character as a Spanish symbol as in [141][142][143][144]. It has been demonstrated its use both during the time of the Hapsburg and the Bourbon as most prominently, common, ordinary standard. Also its use over the Spanish former dominions. Therefore has been proved its relevance for the article of the Spanish Empire. This relevance is recognized today, so the historian Juan Miguel Zunzunegui writes in his historical novel: [145]un estandarte de la cruz de Borgoña, escudo del imperio español
Despite the references mainly contributed by Jaontiveros which show that the Cross of Burgundy could show alone. [146]had long featured a red raguly saltire cross on a white blackground, Santos30 couldn't care less and he'll say that it had to have something else, but coming from someone that approved a flag of the eighteenth century as the standard of Charles V or says that the first national flag of Spain dates since 1785 when at that time only changed the naval flag... and of course it was a Carlist symbol.
Santos30 by no means has demonstrated that the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period extended for ever and ever. Santos30 creates an original research through of the deduction that if the overseas territory were included in the crown of Castile is able to extend the symbols simply on the basis that the explorers and conquerors used a standard of the kingdom, and from there it invents its use for centuries, but the Spanish empire was not only the discovery and conquest, mantaining a belief that the symbols used in this period could be kept for ever and ever at any time and place is a naive but invalid deduction; but also, whereas it has been demonstrated the use of the cross of Burgundy for centuries, Santos30 has not demonstrated anything about the quartering of castles and lions, not as abbreviated armoirial of the king, but as standard the kingdom that was used in America, in spite of the laws of the Indies did not mention it and the only mentioned is the royal standard. And secondly it also fails because the explorers and conquerors only used the royal standard, as Balboa, MagellanCortésColumbus... Even the reference shown by Santos30 to evidence the flag of Castille and Leon by Spanish Armada only mentions the royal standard [147], and also Se hizo por entonces para el Parlamento un juego de tapices que representaba varios episodios de la armada: John Pine los reprodujo en grabado y en muchos galeones españoles se ve la bandera blanca con la cruz de Borgoña. I suppose that Santos30 must have a real mess to understand that it was the royal standard. I said above that but throughout the centuries the king's banner varied with the kings, and they existed variants, complete and abbreviated, and relating to this an user have expressed the same concern on his talk page [148]
I know that santos30 will say I'm wrong, and although he still has not demonstrated the use the quartering of castles and lions from the medieval period throughout the centuries, not as abbreviated arms of the king, but as standard the kingdom, Santos30 takes it for granted, verifiability must be something that Santos30 requires for others but not for himself. But
fact that los reinos de Indias se incorporan a la corona, no al reino de Castilla [149] nullifies
completely the invented claim of Santos30 to extend automatically that standard of kingdom wherever.
Yet despite the political weight of the Crown of Castile, the article is not
called Castilian empire, but Spanish empire, simply because it covers a space larger than the crown of Castile. If the Crown of Castile had more weight does not mean that historical events that occurred in the Spanish empire was spread by many different contexts, even with bigger political interest for ruling authorities, and outside the geographical area of the crown of Castile, but not the Spanish empire.
During a historical period of several centuries there was a representative emblem along the same, which was the cross of Burgundy as has been mentioned by Jaontiveros and myself, and certainly the infobox does not prevent to place it as an representative emblem. There was the administrative entity of the Spanish empire, so it is not able to draw at all costs an
official flag of an entity that was not official. The emblem of the cross of Burgundy can be used by its representative and identificative character, in the same way as the French national emblem is not the official emblem of the country but it is used as such. The military nature of the cross of Burgundy symbol is perfectly feasible for the infobox not due to be military but for being representative, and indeed the Roman aquila appears in the infobox of the article Roman Empire and it is a military symbol of the Roman legions.
Santos30's tactic is to ignore everything and repeat again and again the same slogans fruit of his particular deductions as it was been quoted above. Of course I see useless to keep this discussion with someone who has made WP:GAME as their way of operate, and after tons of references he despises everything that is said and simply raises its solution because a user has put a comment on their talk page.[150] Well, my deepest gratitude to that user. Although there have been references to the use of the white flag with the cross of burgundy in the Spanish empire, if Santos30 is going to leave this absurd issue of the Carlist flag and and close this discussion then I am able to support the replacement of this cross of burgundy for this cross of burgundy. And now to wait for the next crusade, will be to remove the yoke and arrows and the eagle from coat of arms of the Catholic kings because they were falangist symbols 500 years later?. Trasamundo (talk) 14:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
A) Coat of arms of king Juan Carlos I: Apparently the Royal House says otherwise: "Take the shield accolade Burgundy Red Cross, the symbol of Burgundian and Habsburg ancestors". [151][152] Anyway, the Royal Decree published in the BOE (Official Gazette) on July 1th, 1977 makes no mention of "nationalist movement" or something else; [153], and I guess you'll agree that a Royal Decree represents the will of the king. That´s is and that´s all about the present royal coat.
B) "...you must to avoid the white flag...": Just because you do not want it?, I do not think so:
1) King Felipe V, Royal decree of February 28, 1707: "It is my will that every body brings the flag Colonel white, with the cross of Burgundy, in the style of my troops". [154]
2) Tercios: "The most commonly used by Tercios of Spanish infantry during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was the white color that represented the real power, with the blades of the St. Andrew's cross or red Burgundy, which first flew in the Battle of Pavia. [155]
3) History of Puerto Rico: "The white flag with the cross of Burgundy, was adopted in Spain, by decree of Philip V, on February 28, 1707". [156]
4) Cuba: "They sail along the coast of west toward Grosse Point Bois .... always following the boat hoisted at its top, the flag with the cross of Burgundy". [157]
5) Italian wars: The first one had his troops in the war of Italia, it was just white with red Burgundy Cross, followed by another white in the upper third, near the pole, coat of arms is quartered Flags ..... Archduke of Austria who called himself Carlos III. White with Cross of Burgundy, in the center, inside an oval... [158]
6) General History of the Philippines: "...one more than the others and with a white flag with the Cross of Burgundy..." [159]
7) Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata: "The white flag with the cross of Burgundy and the coat of Buenos Aires, with white and blue in each tip the same" .... [160]
8) King Fernando VI, Royal Decree 1748 (about Navy): "This flag, which is distinctive of the Ships of the Navy, may not use the owners, but the white with Cross of Burgundy. [161]
9) History of Navarra: "Furthermore, a decree of Ferdinand VI, dated Seville, January 20, 1732, further practical use of the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy". [162]
10)Viceroyalty of New Spain: "This was the famous Red Blade or Cross of St. Andrew of Burgundy, who was and remained well-known emblem of the Spanish troops for centuries". [163] "It was also used in New Spain a flag with the cross of St. Andrew, red and yellow on white field". [164]
11) The Surrender of Breda: "... refers to Spain, and more particularly to the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy knotted in the form of a red blades of San Andrew, a sign of the house of Burgundy, under which fought the thirds of Flanders..." [165]
12) Cataluña: "Catalan merchant vessels during the reigns of the House of Austria and Bourbon until 1785, hoisted the white flag with the Cross of Burgundy, but the creation of the national flag by King Carlos III, they changed... [166]
13) Hidalguía: "...The old white flag with the Cross of St. Andrew or blades of Burgundy of our invincible Tercios and the conquest of the Indies, had also lost..." [167].
Americas was incorpored to Crown of Castile and whats your problem there?. You can open a new discussion there.
The spanish military white flag (year 1705) have the king's coat of arms. It is not the same that the flag of Carlism. But what I dont understand is why you never ask nothing about the first flag of Spain (year 1785), and persist insisting in the flag of Carlism. Why?. The British empire have the first flag of britain (year 1801).
Flag of Cross of Burgundy militar style (with coat of arms of the King or city)
Flag of Cross of Burgundy carlism style (symbol alone)
The Cross of Burgundy (CoB) flag was widely used in the Spanish viceroyalties in the Americas. The sources provided by Santos at no point dismiss the usage of the CoB flag in the Americas. Several flags were used by the Spanish armies, institutions, and colonists.
During the Wars of Independence (in the Americas), the royalist forces carried the CoB flag into combat.
The argument made by Santos regarding the usage of the CoB flag in the cover of a book (and how that supposedly demonstrates it is solely a Carlist flag) is completely absurd.
Here is a good source on the subject: (Translated from Spanish) "The red and white were, during several centuries, the distinctive colors of the Castilian Kingdom. Even though the Spanish banner adopted yellow and red as its official colors in 1785, during the reign of Charles III, these did not impose themselves into Spanish military units (which at the time of emancipation continued to use the old banners of Castile) definitively until the late 19th century." Page 28
See also: "The Cross of Burgundy was the main Spanish symbol probably since the 11th century when Queen Doña Urraca married with Raimundo of Burgundy, from which all Spanish monarchs descended, until the catholic kings of the 15th century; again again starting in the 17th century with the marriage of Doña Juana with Felipe, Archduke of Austria, grandson of Charles el Temerario." (Page 29 from above source).
My position is that the Cross of Burgundy flag (the rectangled one) should be brought back into the articles from which they were removed by Santos. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk04:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Not you but, could be latinamerican people here in WP who support the cross of burgundy red-white in the viceroyalty only to delete de red-yellow national flag of Spain that is similar today. The cross flags reverted because ¡no have the coat of arms of the king with the white flag!. It isnt flags of Spain. It could be modern flags to recreate (not historic) flags of fortifications as Puerto Rico, or worst modern flags of Carlism, or fascist symbol of "orgullo Criollo". The cross of Burgundy needs spanish coat of arms to be historical as you can see in the regulations of the spanish flags.
Page 15 Your reference (Tertiary source of Metropolitan Municipality of Lima) say: "Francia, al igual que España o Inglaterra,había tenido banderas y escudos anteriores, dependiendo de lacasa real que la gobernaba, pero estas no representaban a todaFrancia y a todos los franceses, más bien eran las insignias desus monarcas.". Then no flag represent any nation state before French or American Revolutions.
[Page 28 Your reference say "El rojo y blanco en la tradición Castellana" and talk about the colors of the ¡republican flag of Peru!. But not talk about cross of burgundy it self. It talk about the ¡red and white colors! of San Martin's flag and the cross of Burgundy, or crown of Castila, or the red symbols of Inca, ever in relation to try to explain the colors of the Flag of republic of Perú put by liberator Jose de San Martin, but ¡No body knows! it is a theory.
We know that the red cross of Burgundy (with king coat of arms) was and ensign of Armed forces of spanish empire. And after 1700 the cross and kings arms was under a white flag (Bourbon) and uniformised all Armed Forces, as Bourbons uniformised all Spanish Empire.
We know that the Crown of Castile have heraldyc red (Castile) and white (León) in their coat of Arms.
We know that all Americas was provinces of the Crown of Castile.
Then, outside battles or military or war articles or modern uses, there are no reason to put a war cross of Armed Forces of Spanish empire over the civil administrations of the crown of Castile. The war cross of Burgundy will be in the battles and armies or fortifications of Spain. But not Viceroyalties or any civil administrative territories in Americas. This is the reason why I revert your edition in Spanish American wars of independence but it is possible to put flag of Burgundy in Armed Forces of Spain. See.
As far as I am concerned, "Orgullo Criollo" is not a Latin American movement, but rather a problem solely concerning Mexico. Neo-nazis in Peru, for instance, use the swastika flag of Nazi Germany.
The articles of the viceroyalties, such as Viceroyalty of New Spain, have a section for the flag (without the coat of arms) and another for the coat of arms.
As can be seen in the Kingdom of France article, France also did not have a national flag. However, that does not mean the article has to remove its flags (or present the French tricolor as an "at the end" flag). All that is needed, in the French Kingdom's case, is an explanation at the bottom that the flag is the King's Standard.
Just because you write "Carlism" at the end of your flag descriptions, it does not make it a reality. The Cross of Burgundy was not solely a Carlist symbol, just as it is not solely a fascist symbol.
Page 29 from the source I provided is quite clear on its mention of the Cross of Burgundy flag.
No official flag existed for the viceroyalties. The reason I used the Cross of Burgundy in the Spanish American wars of independence articles is because that was the war flag used by the viceroyalties. I also think that this flag should go back on the articles of the Viceroyalty of Peru and Viceroyalty of New Spain (as well as the Captaincy General of Chile; which was a military administration more than a civilian's administration), as the Cross of Burgundy flag was the historically most used by these places throughout their history.
You have asked for several "third opinions", and all of them have been favorable towards the return of the Cross of Burgundy flag to the articles from where they were removed. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk18:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
If you want to delete all the flags red-yellow of Spain in relation of Peruvian history maybe you have a problem that we can not solve here.
Third opinion for the article of Spanish Empire yes, and thank you, but you came late because already we have a consensus to put the military red cross of Burgundy here. Without the modern white flag. We know that cross of Burgundy was a military symbol of Armed Forces of Spain. In the Spanish American Wars of Independence, to arrive a consensus with you, I added the military cross of Burgundy of the Royal Army of Peru. [175]. But about Viceroyalty of Perú, as I tell you in your discussion, Viceroyalty is not an armed forces organization, it is a civilian administration of the Crown of Castile, then the symbol must be the coat of arms and at the end the flag of Spain Cesáreo Fernández Duro read here. About the traditions of the origin of the colors red-white of the flag of Perú it is irrelevant for Spanish empire or Viceroyalty of Perú or any other spanish dominion.--Santos30 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Can we at least agree on the use of the square Cross of Burgundy (CoB) flag on military conflict infoboxes? Chiton (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Done Thanks. —Ms2ger (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Enriquegoni (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
So what is your answer now? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Do you agree? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
option selected
Flag of Cross of Burgundy militar style (with coat of arms of the King or city)
Flag of Cross of Burgundy carlism style (symbol alone)
Cross Burgundy red in white flag with coat of arms of the king (Spanish Crown +Golden Fleece of Habsbourg + Fleur-de-lis of Bourbon)
![[46]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Imperio_espa%C3%B1ol.png){kind=link}
![[54]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pertes_territoriales_allemagne_1919_1945.svg){kind=link}
![[64]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Spain.png){kind=link}
![[65]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Iberian_Union_Empires.png){kind=link}
![[66]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Colonization_of_the_Americas_1750.PNG){kind=link}
![[117]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BANDERA_VIRREINAL_NOVOHISPANA.svg?uselang=es){kind=link}
![[119]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Banda_del_Regimiento_de_Infanter%C3%ADa_1_%22Patricios%22.jpeg?uselang=es){kind=link}
![[130]](http://hispaniasobretodo.blogia.com/upload/20070119182743-1zm09b4.jpg){kind=link}
![[131]](http://www.inehrm.gob.mx/imagenes/bandera/02.jpg){kind=link}
![[132]](http://ushistoryimages.com/images/vasco-nunez-de-balboa/fullsize/vasco-de-balboa-1.jpg){kind=link}
![[135]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eFwIrj2StnI/TiF55IiEBYI/AAAAAAAAEsc/spGAIvaFaxc/s1600/Departamento%2BMar%25C3%25ADtimo%2Bde%2BFerrol.bmp){kind=link}
![[136]](http://www.aviationcorner.net/public/photos/3/1/avc_00036931.jpg){kind=link}
![[137]](http://www.ejercito.mde.es/Galerias/Imagenes/unidades/Madrid/ihycm/Ihycm-2765.jpg){kind=link}
![[138]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Coat_of_Arms_of_the_BRIPAC.svg?uselang=es){kind=link}
![Flag of Cross of Burgundy Latin American fascist style. [1]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload?wpDestFile=Bandera_del_orgullo_criollo.png){kind=link}