Talk:Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659)

message: This article still needs an introductory summary giving context. --Wetman 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Both the French ] and  Spanish  versions of this article describe the war as ending in a French victory. That seems like a more logical conclusion than that it was a stalemate, as we are claiming. While it's true that it was not necessarily a crushing defeat for Spain, the ultimate result was that it was forced to cede some territories (Artois, Roussillon and some cities like Thionville) to France, while France did not give up any of its pre-war territory, only some of its conquests. Also, Philip IV was forced to consent to his daughter's marriage to Louis XIV and pay a dowry. For all that to occur following a stalemate seems curious. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like this was the work of a single editor pushing his POVs. Aozyk (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Territorial losses aren't necessarily a signal of defeat, and marriages with members of the French Royal family had been a policy for decades in Spain: Philip II and Philip IV, for instance, had married to French princesses. It's very common to extrapolate the result of the Battle of the Dunes to the whole conflict, but even if France won the war in the Netherlands, it was defeated at the much forgotten fronts of Catalonia and Italy. In fact, the last battle of the war, fought at Camprodón, in Catalonia, ended with the destruction of the French army of the province. As I've tried to portray in the article, the war's result was inconclusive and neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage. It was some sort of 'to be continued'. Weymar Horren (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Territorial losses are not necessary a sign of defeat, as seen in the Smolensk War of Ifni War. However, given that Spain also lost control of the Kingdom of Portugal, and struggled to keep control of Catalonia and Naples, was forced to recognise the independence of the Netherlands (perhaps not only due to this war, but mostly due to it) and eventually went into a terminal decline for the rest of the Century. I would consider it to be a French victory. (talk) 21:07 12 August 2020 (UTC) 
Yeah, military stalemate made no sense, Spain lost territories in the war, even if it prevented further losses. Dona Deda (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalemate? 

message: Hi, I added the Principality of Catalonia as a combatant in the French side, but not for the period between 1641-1652, in which it was incorporated to the French Crown, but in fact for the period of 1640 and 1641. In the 7 of September of 1640, by the Pact of Ceret (Rousillon), the Generalitat of Catalonia agreed with France the secession of the Principality from the Monarchy of Spain and the participation in the war as an allied of France, as well French military aid. The General Estates of Catalonia accepted this pact few days later, and until the 23 of January of 1641 it was officialy a separate member of the fight. It was this day when the Catalan Republic (17-23 Jaunary) was incorporated to the Monarchy of France, officialiy since the Pact of Péronne (19 of September).--Jacobí (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: New combatant

message: Template:Infobox military conflict
* result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.
Then you can write something useful or we keep this going forever. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Result 

message: To summarise;
- The Lead has been written in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines; despite being asked to read them, then tell me which they disagree with, the editor has now re-inserted them six times, while telling me I'm wrong. I'm not sure why that is proving so difficult;
- I have included the quotes in a separate section, in the body of the article; apparently this isn't good enough.
- Contrary to the claim that the content has been 'deleted', it has been moved; it appears therefore the issue is not what, but whether it should be in the Lead.
- We have now wasted considerable time on this, hence I'm applying for a ruling. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration Request