Talk:War of the Spanish Succession/Archive 1

message: My idea for the combatants would be this. It fits with WP:MILHILST and WP:MILHILST/MCI. I've already tried to put it in the article, but Albrecht keeps removing it.
Combatant 1:
 Austriacists Crown of Aragon Dutch Republic1
 England —  Kingdom of Great Britain 2
 Holy Roman Empire
 Portugal
Combatant 2:
 Bourbonics1
 Electorate of Bavaria
 Kingdom of France
 Kingdom of Spain
———————————————————————————————————————
===1st reference:===
Above an European War, the War of the Spanish Succession was a Spanish civil war, which confronted the peoples of the Empire, not only in the mainland but also in the colonies. In this context of internal troubles, those who decided to follow the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI received the nickname of Austriacists (because they supported the House of Austria), while those who chose Philip V of Spain were called Bourbonics (because they supported the House of Bourbon), or Philippists. In castilian, the term borbónico (Bourbonic) can be found in the DRAE online dictionary: 1. In Catalan, the terms filipista (Philippist), austriacista (Austriacist) and borbònic (Bourbonic) can be found in the Online Dictionary of IEC: 1, 2, 3. In a satirical meaning, other names were also used to define the combatants of each side. Examples of this are the Catalan terms botifler (meaning someone with inflated cheeks; it can be understood as a synonym of traitor), which was used by the Austriacists to insult the Bourbonic supporters in Catalonia, and maulet, which was used to define the Austriacist supporters in Catalonia. These terms can also be found in the Online Dictionary of IEC: 1, 
2. By adding the coats of arms of the two pretenders to the throne, all those individuals who fought in one or the other side of the conflict are represented in the infobox.
===2nd reference:===
fter the Acts of Union of 1707, the Kingdom of England was merged with the Kingdom of Scotland, giving birth to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
———————————————————————————————————————
I think it's much better than (1) just putting England in the combatants' list instead of explaining that at the begin it was England but at the end was also Great Britain (which is a lot different) and (2) ignoring the fact that it was a Spanish civil war and thus there were Austriacists and Borbonics (or Philippists).
Onofre Bouvila 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss about the combatants, please

message: fter the Acts of Union of 1707, the Kingdom of England was merged with the Kingdom of Scotland, giving birth to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
———————————————————————————————————————
I think it's much better than (1) just putting England in the combatants' list instead of explaining that at the begin it was England but at the end was also Great Britain (which is a lot different) and (2) ignoring the fact that it was a Spanish civil war and thus there were Austriacists and Borbonics (or Philippists).
Onofre Bouvila 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd reference:

message: I haven't contributed, and I've tweaked now just for forcefulness and clarity, but may I express a couple of thoughts anyway?
*"Louis XIV was the son of a Spanish princess, Anne of Austria": this is an awkward phrase. Wouldn't "Habsburg" do better?
**She was called "Anne of Austria" because the Habsburg dynasty in Spain was known as the Austrian dynasty. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Too good not to be better

message: * Why is this featured article using a language like that in the description of the picture ?
** I have no idea what this might refer to. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Language 

message: I don't accept the argument User:Anagnorisis is making against the inclusion of Template:Catalan-speaking world in this article. As I wrote in my edit summary, "As a key event in the history of the Catalan-speaking world, this Template:Catalan-speaking world certainly belongs; it may be that others should be added for other contexts." He responded "A template that has modern painters and football teams is not related to the events of 300 years ago." That strikes me as, basically, a non sequitir. 
One might as well say that Template:African American topics sidebar cannot belong on practically any article, because it mentions both the slave trade and a baseball league, and there aren't going to be many articles to which both are directly related. This ignores that the common thread of national/ethnic experience is the reason for the template in the first place, and is the thing that ties these together.
My own view is that there are too many football teams on Template:Catalan-speaking world. I had initially included FC Barcelona because they were such a symbol during the Franco era, one of the few rallying points of Catalan nationalism in a repressive time. People kept adding others; I don't think the others belong, but no one has backed me up on this, help would be welcome. But using that criticism of the template's contents to argue that Template:Catalan-speaking world doesn't belong on a crucial event in the history of the Catalans strikes me as absolutely wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Anagnorisis. This historical information, without any doubt, one of the most relevant events for Catalan-speaking world. It's important to read this article if you want to understand current topics such as Catalan language situation or related political issues such as Catalan nationalism. I think that having this template inserted in this article is really a good choice, so readers may learn from related topics in a specific area. I have taken a look at AfricanAmerican template and I find it wonderful, as well. Toniher 14:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Toniher. Yes, your points are valid. However I still disagree. Let me try explaining myself better. I will try to give another example of why I still think the argument doesn't work for these articles. I will use the same logic used by streching it a bit and applying it to other cases. Lets say we are reading about the French Revolution. We could argue that because the French Revolution at the time it happened by key in spreading some ideas around the world that became the catalist to the wars of independece in the Americas, then we insert templates of the American countries in it. Or say we are reading an article about the Catholic church, and given that the evangelization policies of the church and the European nations were key in shaping many countries today, we place the Brazilian, Mexican and Philippines templates inside the article about the Catholic church. See? I do not debate the relevance of one set of events to the development of another culture or nation or whatever you want to call it, what I argue about the inclusion of the template. One article about informing people of some facts. The other is about the consequences from those acts. Cause and effect. Perhaps in the effected topics one could talk about the causes, but in the causing articles one does not need to go into all such details. If not, imagine how the Roman empire article would look. Because then by the same rationale we could also have the Catalan speaking world template in the Roman empire article. BTW, I haven't even looked yet at the AfricanAmerican template. :-) --Anagnorisis 17:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hello Agnorisis, I understand you are questioning the very templates. Maybe this should be discussed generally in another place :-)  I would join the discussion if you propose it somewhere in this wikipedia. Well, of course, entries in templates such be restricted if we do not want to end up in dinosaurs era. Accordingly, Catalan-speaking template has been cleaned from sport teams. Maybe instead of this War, I would rather substitute it with Decretos de Nueva Planta, which might be regarded as a more restricted and specific event centered on Catalan-specific world, as it's done with Treaty of Pyrenees. IMHO, I consider these topics/templates such be included since I think they are useful for interested readers. Toniher 10:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Toniher, I do not think I question the very templates. I just question their inclusion in some articles. By this, I mean that just because events long ago had influence still felt to this day in a region doesn't mean the reverse is that relevant to understanding the article. If anything, it should be the other way around: having in the article about things today (in this case things Catalan), a reference to things from long ago (in this case these wars). I look once again at the template and I do not see why someone wanting to read about historic events taking place in Europe 300 years ago would want a template in the article with links to Castells · Correfocs · Myths and legends · Generalitat de Catalunya · Generalitat Valenciana · Salvador Dalí · Joan Miró, etc. And again, if the issue is one of recency, please allow me to give you another example more recent: imagine the article about WWII. Coudn't by the same reasoning then one want to include there a template about its effect in the Eastern European Countries (and one would then have in that template all the countries, the artists, the legends, etc, of those countries). Now, having WWII had such impact in other things, one could include there a template for the country of Israel and the Jewish culture and another template for France, etc. Or what about having templates for all the countries impacted by the Napeleonic Wars? I am not sure I am explaining myself well, but IMO a template that does not really fit the article and tries to promote someothing else distracts from the actual topic being touched and amounts to a promotional attempt of the other topics (in this case the Catalan world). Again, I could want trying to promote reading all kind of things about the Philippines by inserting a template that draws readers to Filipino artists by inserting a similar template in the article about the Spanish-American War. Of course it would be unfair doing so inless we also included two more templates: one for the Spanish Speaking countries and another for the USA. Yes, templates that would have modern day artists from the USA and Cuba and Spain, and ... Somehow I foresee I will loose this debate. Again, this is all just my POV :-) Cheers. --Anagnorisis 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the substitution of Decretos de Nueva Planta in the template and the placement of the template on that article instead of this one would be a good compromise. Anagnorisis, would you also accept that? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure I understood what the proposal is (though it sounds as making sense - whatever it is). Looking at the article Decretos de Nueva Planta, it certainly is very much related to this War. But I am not sure I understand what will go where. Thinking about it, all that is in the Decretos de Nueva Planta article could be at the end of this one as part of the explanation of the inmediate aftermath following the wars; in the "result" section (somehow I find that world 'result' lacking - what about changing it to 'aftermath' or 'consequences'?).   --Anagnorisis 04:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:Catalan-speaking world 

message: "Other states joined the coalition opposing France and Spain in an attempt to acquire new territories, or to protect existing dominions."
This needs to be viewed in the context of the Catholic Counter Reformation against the Protestants.  Spain and France are Catholic bulwarks.  Other nations may have joined merely to preserve the Protestant cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) 15 Feb 2006
:But Austrians Habsburks was catholic too. Savoy too. :-) Cinik 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Religious motives?

message: I think the article could benefit greatly from adding an infobox, like the widely used Template:Infobox Military Conflict. CG 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: Why isn't Portugal mentioned in the list of combatants? The article mentions the country some times, and its role against Spain (such as the capture of Madrid by the Marquis of Minas).--213.58.24.208 12:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portugal? 

message: This article has become very shabby. Spelling mistakes, broken links, a very poor infobox, no campaign  box, badly positioned picture, lack of pictures, broken reference links, more info needed - needs alot of work for FA standard Raymond Palmer 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. In the lead, "to safeguard the Protestant succession" is very unclear: Protestantism is mentioned only one other time in the article, and not in an obviously related context. Can someone clarify? - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: For the paragraph that begins "The most direct and legitimate successor would have been Louis, the Grand Dauphin…", a chart of these very convoluted relationships would be very helpful. - Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Additionally, there are no footnotes which is a prerequisite for a FA now. Raymond Palmer 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * It's good to see that our standards are going up. I don't think I'd want to nominate it to be removed from the FA list, it's not really an embarrassment, but it could use being brought up to our current standards. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the sourcing, as well - we've got Lord Acton (1906), 1911 Britannica, an account from 1713, a book from 1951, and an article about technical legal issues with the renunciations, from the POV of 21st century French Legitimism (insofar as 21st century French legitimism exists, it does so in the form of Guy Stair Sainty). At a thought, some potential sources would be John Lynn's book on the Wars of Louis XIV (quite recent), and McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815 (from the 70s, I think) for the diplomacy. There's also a number of books by Jeremy Black which might be useful. I doubt that this article, at this point, really qualifies to be featured. It's a detailed article that does a fairly good job, I think, on giving the narrative, but I don't know that that's sufficient. john k 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Shouldn't we also give background on how at this time even Iberian Spain (let alone the Empire) was by no means a unified nation: there really was no "King of Spain", there was a "King of the Spains". The crowns of Castile and Aragon were still formally quite separate, and the Crown of Aragon was at least three distinct kingdoms (Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia), each with its own laws; I believe (though things changed enough at different dates that I'm not sure) that the Balearics, or at least Mallorca, may have constituted a separate entity as well. Otherwise, these regions trying to go their own way is rather mysterious. I assume (though I don't have a reference for this) that they would have been very wary of the centralizing tendencies that had been displayed by Louis XIV (and which, in the event, would ultimately be visited upon them after defeat in the war). - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a medieval title of "King of Majorca," but I don't think it was its own kingdom.  I'm not sure, though, what it was part of - possibly Valencia.  Sardinia was also arguably part of the crown of Aragon, though, and maybe even the two Sicilian kingdoms. john k 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When originally set up, the Kingdoms of Majorca and Sicily (Trinacria) were given to junior branches of the Aragonese royal line (then ruling in Aragon and Valencia). The Kings of Aragon acquired Sardinia and Corsica as papal fiefs in 1303, but conquered only Sardinia, and that in 1409, after a struggle of almost a century. In 1343, James III of Majorca was declared a "contumacious vassal", and his kingdom (consisting of the Balearic Islands and the counties of Cerdagne and Roussillon) was added to the other realms of Aragon. Sicily was inherited in 1409 and carried over through the Compromise of Caspe; Naples was held jointly for a few years but then went to a junior line, and was only reattached by conquest in 1504. Of the Aragonese realms, the Cortes of Valencia would be associated with the Kingdom of Valencia, the Cortes of Catalonia with the County of Barcelona, and the Cortes of Aragon with the Kingdom of Aragon. Given that the capital of the old Kingdom of Majorca was at Perpignan on the mainland, in Catalonia, I would guess that the Balearics were more closely associated with the Cortes of Catalonia than the other two. Choess 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  But were all of the Balearics part of "Valencia" at that date? Quite possibly so. Anyway, a map of the Spanish territories at the start of the war, marking out whatever were considered separate kingdoms or possessions would be a good addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Were there any italian combatants besides the Duke of Savoy, who switched sides?  I don't recall Venice, Tuscany, the Pope, or any of the smaller states being directly involved.  I seem to recall that the Emperor annexed Mantua to the Duchy of Milan in 1708 (having conquered Milan in 1706), but I don't remember the significance of this.  In terms of German states, were Bavaria and Cologne the only significant ones to take the French side, besides the various ecclesiastical states in personal union with Cologne (apparently Joseph Clemens, Archbishop-Elector of Cologne, was also bishop of Hildesheim, Liège, and Regensburg)? Just to note, I don't think relatively minor states should be in the box.  Only the major powers (France and Spain on one side, the Empire, the United Provinces, and England on the other) should be in the box.  But there should be a section fully detailing all the powers involved.  States in the Holy Roman Empire should only be mentioned if they provided substantial support to one side or the other - otherwise every free city would have to be listed in the column with England and Holland.  Also, I've added Spain as an ally of France to the box, and removed Bavaria.  Spain was clearly France's most significant ally.  Bavaria was important for the first few years of the war, but not nearly as important as Spain, and after 1704 was just occupied territory. john k 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  John, the Duchy of Mantua was mobilized and Austria occupied the Papal states. I believe Venice remained quiet. In Germany, the Electors of Cologne (and all his territories) and Bavaria were the only active allies of the French. Saxe-(Gotha?) and Mecklenburg had subsidy treaties with France, but were prevented in carrying through with their obligations. There was a revolt against Austrian occupation in Bavaria and a sizeable Bavarian force remained in exile in Flanders (5 battalions and 20-30 squadrons) from 1705 onward. All of this probably isn't essential, but sure would be nice to have. --Malbrook 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add Bavaria to the table, if we like.  I'm just concerned that that would be giving it importance over the various German states on the Allied side - notably Prussia and Hanover, which were at least as important.  Including all those in "Holy Roman Empire" and Bavaria out on its own seems a bit unbalanced.  Was the Pope pro-French? john k 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  John, is it really appropriate to say that "Spain" was an ally of France? After all that begs the question of which was the rightful succession. - Jmabel | Talk 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not an issue of rightful succession.  It's an issue of de facto control.  Philip V was the effective ruler of all of the Spanish territories when the war began.  Every territory he lost was lost to conquest by the Allies.  Castile never wavered in its loyalty to him.  Charles III gained some support in Catalonia, but that's about it.  He certainly never had any notable Spanish armies on his side, unlike his rival. john k 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that we have no problem saying Austria was on one side of the War of the Austrian Succession.  The case is roughly analogous. john k 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Shabby

message: Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy was one of the most important main character during the War of the Spanish Succession. His victory over the French and the Spaniards in the battle of Turin (1706) was the beginning of the establishing of the Kingdom of Sardinia (1720).
In 1706, short before the battle of Turin, the hero Pietro Micca saved the town during a French attack (August 29) and during the battle (September 7) the Piedmontese troops -not the Austrian troops- were the first to break through the French lines. No picture of Vittorio Amedeo II is to be found in this article about this war and no picture of the hero Pietro Micca. A shame!
The Battle of Turin is generally though of as a victory of Eugene of Savoy, who, while of the House of Savoy, was in the Austrian service.  82.124.36.126 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mentioning that the Piedmontese were involved alongside the Austrians seems worthwhile.  We should not call it a victory of Victor Amadeus II, just as we shouldn't call Blenheim a defeat for the Elector of Bavaria. john k 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  THE  IMPORTANCE  OF  VITTORIO  AMEDEO  II  OF  SAVOY 

message: Why does this article (excepting a small reference in the opening paragraph to Queen Anne's War) make reference to the other peripheral theatres of the war? The reason I ask is they seem significant holes in a feature article.
I acknowledge that  events in the Americas (Both North and West Indies) did not have a great impact on the main event - the fighting in the low countries - but it is still an important part of the narrative of the war as Anglo-American failure has some influence upon the peace treaty.  Similarly, the dismissal of the maritime aspect of the conflict - while again a secondary aspect - its effects in the Mediterranean (gaining for Britain Minorca and the Rock and as part of a southern strategy), the British battle (again) with French guerre de course and the realisation of dominance at sea by the RN are all significant to the history of the war.  
As such I'd suggest two things, first the merging of Queen Anne's War into this article as a section on the North American theatre and making mention of the West Indian fighting (I lack the time and resources to cover this aspect) and writing a section on the maritime aspects of the war focusing on the guerre de course and the Mediterranean (which, if nobody else takes up the gauntlet, I should be able to do shortly.)
I'd appreciate thoughts etc. Inane Imp 11:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WHY NO OTHER THEATRES?

message: It's completely misleading to pretend that the two factions in Spain are on the same level as combatants.  The "Bourbonics", or whatever you want to call them, actually controlled the government of Spain. The "Austriacists" never controlled any territory of their own - they were basically just a puppet faction of the allies, and only had any power in areas under allied military control.  Furthermore, in Castile, which was the heart  of the Spanish monarchy, there was never any noticeable support for an "Austriacist" faction, and the struggle was generally seen by elite circles in Castile, at least, as a struggle for the integrity of the Spanish Empire against foreign invaders.  The current table implies an equality between the two sides that didn't really exist.   The whole of Spain's military and naval power was at the service of France.  The forces supporting Charles of Austria were largely creatures of the allies.  john k 20:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combatants 

message: I think we should set aside the Catalan nationalist problem for the time being and work on the rest of the article.  It's good, generally, but if it was nominated for FA today it would probably not pass.  I'm going to try to gather some citations for the rest of the article and work to ensure that it would not fail should someone put it up for FA review.  As it stands now, not including that cancerous appendage to the info box, we have four footnotes.  This is an important article, and certainly deserves better citation. Coemgenus 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "Catalan nationalism", it's just explaining what really happened. The fact of having the point of view of what you call a "Catalan nationalist" does not generate bias but a gives a wider point of view to analyze the things. I could also say that, writting the whole article from your point of view is "British nacionalism". And indeed I say it, because it is. Trying to add information about Spain and the situation of its territories by those times is not trying to propagate a nationalist idea of the conflict; it is just trying to give credit to the facts, to what really happened: a part of the history that from your your vision of the things you are ignoring. This article will never be a featured article (talking about the reality, not about what a bunch of guys say it is) until you leave aside your globalizing point of view and stop seeing this like a "two factions conflict", and stop ignoring other realities that, though far to you, did exist and must be explained in the article; you are banning these realities to be explained, and even mentioned. That, is being nationalist and intolerant; not trying to explain them. Onofre Bouvila 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article 

message: Would anyone object to some edits I have in mind? I am new to this, (but I am a history professor :P ).
:Go ahead.  The Wiki philosophy is to 'be bold', but don't be too surprised if your revisions get reversed.  That is just the beginning of the discussion.  (things take time).  Gomm 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  May I make some edits please? 

message: After reading this article, it is not clear what the causes of this war are.209.232.148.110 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Royally fucked up inheritance? --Victor falk 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  causes not clear