Talk:Imperator totius Hispaniae

message: The title of this article is incorrect, even if Imperator totius Hispaniae has been tradicionaly translated as Emperor of all Spain or Emperor of Spain. Notice that, before the emergence of the modern country of Spain (beginning with the union of Castile and Aragon in 1492), the Latin word Hispania, in any of the Iberian Romance languages, either in singular or plural forms (in English: Spain or Spains), was used to refer to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, and not exclusively, as in modern usage, to the country of Spain, thus excluding Portugal. Iberia or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also.  The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not the whole of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian - look up the article on Nationalities in Spain). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula or to Hispania, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, I'm changing the title of this article to the Latin version Imperator totius Hispaniae. The Ogre 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a big problem with this. Spain is Hispania. Do not be so ignorant as to think that just because Spain and Portugal are separate nations now this has any bearing on the matter. Spain is a direct translation of the Latin term Hispania and is the most commonly used one. Spain should be understood in a historical context as applying to the entire peninsula once called Hispania. This is scholarly usage and your objections are null. I have no big problem with the move to the Latin title, but the use of "Emperor of All Hispania" in articles is absurd and will be reverted soon enough. (I had a somewhat similar conversation a while back at Talk:Kingdom of Galicia.) Srnec 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you were writing in Latin, how would you translate Spain? See . While confusion should be avoided, so should unnatural and invented terminology. I did not make up "Emperor of Spain", but I have never seen "Emperor of All Hispania" in any source. I would use a piped link if I were linking the word "Spain" and referring to something other than the modern nation, though note that the page Spain contains an informative history section. The present meaning of Spain in certain historical contexts is equivalent to Iberia, Christian Iberia, or the Spanish-speaking kingdoms. It is preferable to Iberia in certain contexts for many reasons, familiarity of terminology and avoidance of geographical terms applied to political situations are two. I disagree that "Hispania" is better understood by most readers and how is it preferable, being a word with a Roman political meaning independent of its medieval meaning, just as Spain describes a modern polity which is not identical with the medieval (and is the cause of your objection)? Srnec 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The title should be translated as "High King of [All] Iberia"; anything else is misleading. Hispania is not Spain in modern English, but Iberia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Irregardless of how it should be translated, there is the question of how it is translated. The term "Spain" is commonly (ubiquitously) used in modern scholarship to refer to Iberia in the Middle Ages. Spain is a cognate and etymological descendant of Hispania, which originally referred to the entire peninsula. Srnec 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... from now on I shall call England to the whole of Britain, as many in Portugal do... The Ogre 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand what you mean and I don't see why the habits of those in Portugal matter here. Do you mean that you will call Britain "England"? The fact is that "Spain" in a historical context refers to the whole of Iberia, just like England would include Wales in some contexts. The inability to realise that current terminology is not universally applicable back through time is laughable. Tibet is now politically a part of China. Should we refer to Tibet in the past as being a part of China? Portugal is only an independent nation from the mid-12th century and it is no more distinct from any other kingdom of the peninsula than those kingdoms were from each other until the 16th century. Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre, Castile-León, Valencia, and Portugal were pretty well distinct kingdoms. Why does the last one stand out? Because it just so happened to avoid being attached to Spain after 1640 and escaped again during the Napoleonic Wars? Because it's language is different? No more different (probably less, in fact) than Catalan is from Castilian. Certainly less different than Basque! So what is your point? Just because Portugal and Spain are completely different entitites today and the nomenclature is anchored in the presumptiveness of the Castilian-Aragonese monarchs does not have a bearing on this historical situation. In fact, it is illustrative of the modern presumptiveness of using the term "Hispania" (España, Spain) for only a part of Hispania that even the Leonese monarchs, who considered themselves the heirs of the Visigothic monarchs who ruled all Hispania, used an imperial title that was unrelated to political reality. Srnec 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, but you didn't get it. The point was that Portugal is no different from Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre, Valencia, etc. until all those kingdoms came under one Crown in the early sixteenth century. It was less than a lifetime between the formation of Spain (as a country, as we understand it looking back five hundred years) and the addition of Portugal to the Spanish Crown. When Portugal regained independence in 1640, who could have foreseen that only those two entities, Spain and Portugal, would continue to exist for  350 years? My whole point was that the Iberian peninsula cannot be seen as "Spain and Portugal" until the Enlightenment at the earliest. In the Middle Ages there was nothing to unite Catalonia and Galicia more strongly than Galicia and Portugal. I think this should be obvious, yet Galicia and Catalonia ended up being part of the same nation (and nationalist Spaniards have arisen in both), while Portugal managed to avoid union with either. But this is all post-medieval. When talking of the Middle Ages we cannot use "Spain" to mean "Iberia minus Portugal", for that would be a lie. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Hispania]] is not [[Spain]]!

message: Is there any documented evidence that the modern title King of Spain is not in fact analogous to the Imperial title? Could not the adoption of King of Spain in the 18th century be in fact the ressurection of the imperial title in light of the fact that even in the 12th and 13th century they used the latin title "King"/ "Queen" of Spain? So far in my research I have not found evidence that it is not.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Spain as modern Imperator totius Hispaniae 

message: Srnec, what an impressive and great improvement for the article!!! Thank you very much! I have made a few minor edits and one minor reformatting (adding Urraca to the line of rulers from Leon). Urraca's use of the title could be explored a bit more too. But in general I'm greatly impressed and thankful for your contrabutions!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree with putting Urraca under the rulers of Castile section, but I don't understand why you insist on talking about Alfonso and Galicia, which is not strictly relevant. In the process of your editing you removed I think two sourced dates, which misleads the reader concerning what the cited sources say. Further, your citations of Reilly lack page numbers, but I have added some of his information about Urraca's titles to her section. If you add more information, make sure not to remove that which is already properly cited and cite your own properly, i.e. in accordance with the format already used throughout the article and with page numbers (e.g. "Reilly 1982, 244"). —Srnec (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. You did a great job. The removal of cited sources was compleatly in error and I do apologize. My copy of Reilly's work doesn't have page numbers as it was downloaded from the internet, so my page numbers may not corrospond to the actual book published. Yet it is there. I do not see how the information about Alfonso VII in Galacia is irrelevant, and its absence leaves the reader with the impression that he was all but independent of his mother, which was not the case. From my perspective, it is important to note for the reader that he was in fact a vassal of his mother, and that it was significant that he was granted the rule of Toledo when he started to first use the imperial title and under the direct tutalage of Urraca's chief advisor, the Archbishop of Toledo. That dispite one or two disagreements between the two, they (mother and son) were in accord rather then not. In my opinion, leaving this information out leaves the impression that they were at odds and always in conflict. Prehaps it may be reworded and I am open to that.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great Improvement 

message: Yeah, the title is indented and I dont know why. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indented title. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imperator totius Hispaniae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720145339/http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/WEB/archivos/respublica/hispana/documento2.pdf to http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/WEB/archivos/respublica/hispana/documento2.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified