Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 1

message: Global means it had colonies on every single all the contients of todays world i believe which is true it was the first to do so.
:That is a lie, Spain did not had colonies in all the continents, Portugal did. Portugal had colonies in America, Africa and Asia, Spain only had colonies in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.243.173 (talk • contribs) . 
I believe the first sentence is not correct: 'Habsburg Spain was the center of the first global empire.'. What exactly does this mean ? I think there were many empires before the spanish that could be called "global"(like the mongolian empire, the Umayyad Caliphate,etc). (Anonymous)
:A glance at the globe reveals that the Mongol Empire was Asian, the Ummayad Caliphate stretching from Persia to Morocco. 'Habsburg Spain was the center of the first global empire' is a sensible statement, which might make a reader stop a moment and visualize. --Wetman 06:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Global empire

message: The new major revision starts out with the assertion that Spain was "the first modern state in Europe", but doesn't explain that statement. "It had three empires"-- was this a legal definition used by the Spanish government?
:The Spanish Empire was the combination of Castille's Atlantic empire, Aragon's Mediterranean empire, and the European possessions of the Holy Roman Empire. 
:Castilla and Aragon were independent kingdoms, and the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon did not result in the merging of the two realms. Their daughter Juana inherited both crowns and married Philip, heir to the Holy Roman Empire. Their son Charles inherited all three crowns, and reigned as Charles I of Spain but was known in Europe as (Holy Roman) Emperor Charles V.
:Charles I is arguably the first king of Spain, and it is somewhat anachronistic to talk about Spain before he became king in 1516.
:Spain can be said to be the first modern European state because it is the first european state where the feudal system is systematically dismantled by the monarchy (and this is the meaning of the word modern in this case), at the very beginning of the 16th century, decades if not centuries before similar developments in the other major European states. Spain  Portugal might be an exception, but it was absorbed into Spain during the reign of Charles' son, Philip II. 
:Miguel 00:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major revision 

message: This article even starts in 1402, to set a date before 1415 - what a stupidity. Dates for the Empires: http://www.timelines.info/history/empires_and_civilizations/ -Pedro 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: From my point of view, it's quite clear that the period before the crowning of Charles I means not the existence of the empire, but a necessary set of information in order to understand what comes later.--Iluntasun 19:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Starting date

message: No one could seriously defend this map, which shows all territories claimed by Spain at any period between 1492 and 1898, including territories in southern Saskatchewan never penetrated even by Spanish explorers, the Falkland Islands claimed by Argentina, S. America divided by the Tordesillas line through uncharted Amazonia in the middle of modern-day Brazil yada yada yada, yet doesn't show Portugal, a Spanish possession 1580-1640. Let's have a real map, taken at some particular date, that authentically shows the real reach of the Spanish empire. This one is too silly properly to discuss. --Wetman 03:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: (Note: the above was the product of confusion resulting from XGustaX having tampered with my map, pictured right.)
Some thoughts on my own work: 
*Anachronous maps are no novelty on Wikipedia; they serve a valuable purpose by depicting simultaneously what is very complicated to convey in succession. If possible and practical, we could expand colour-coding to depict territories lost by 1824 and 1898, but this can also be described quite succinctly in the article text (in fact, one reason my image is in such a sorry state is because I also was horrified at Gusta's map and rushed to make a replacement – edit histories will confirm this).
*The territory skirting the south of Canada was part of the Louisiana colony, ruled by the Spanish 1763 - 1801 and de jure administered under Spain until the Louisiana Purchase. I'll grant you that a portion of the U.S. interior ought reasonably to be pink, but the map is of course subject to revision and it's hard to find sources with precise boundary information.
*The Falklands have belonged to the United Kingdom since 1833; but I hardly see how Argentine claims can cloud the fact that the islands were under Spanish control for certain periods in the 18th century. 
*My dividing line in the Amazon is based on an antique map from the 18th century that clearly delineated the Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence. I have taken special care to investigate similar minute details, but of course my imperfect hand has likely marred other areas with faults. I welcome corrections and collaboration, especially with regards to Portuguese possessions, a sphere in which only dedication and research can compensate for my lack of knowledge. Albrecht 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: A map from the 1790s actually would probably be closest to what I have so far in the Americas (the only differences of note being the loss of the Guianas, Belize, Jamaica, Haiti, and other Caribbean islands). Working with the colours is possible, but I cannot agree that an asynchronous map is inaccurate or misleading: I think it serves a valuable purpose by depicting at a glance what could otherwise only be obvious after careful study of many maps or a thorough reading of a list of territories. How could any fixed-date map show the Spanish puppet-kingdom of Cambodia (1594-1599)? Albrecht 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I was pretty careful to get North America right – if Spanish territory looks inflated, it's probably because of Louisiana. Also keep in mind that the Spaniards controlled the Pacific Coast from California to British Columbia (see Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra), in which they established a significant military presence in the 1790s. As previously stated, the interior of present-day Oregon, Washington, and parts of Nevada, ought to be pink – but these are very minor concerns compared with what we're currently displaying on the article. Albrecht 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading anachronous map

message: Charles I of Spain succeeded in 1516 his grandfather Ferdinad II of Aragon to the throne of Spain. From his father Philip he inherited the Low Countries, the Franch-Comte and the Austrian territories. In 1519 the German bankers (Fugger, Welser) had him crowned as the Holy Roman Emperor, putting thus under the authority of the Kintg of Spain the whole of Germany until 1556. Why are the German and Austrian territories not coloured in any way in the map?
:Because, unlike (say) :Image:British Empire Anachronous 6.png, which apparently includes every piece of ground British soldiers ever set foot on, this map includes only Spanish dependencies. Habsburg Germany, Bohemia, etc., while dynastically aligned with the Spanish kingdoms, were never under any sort of meaningful Spanish influence, rule, or administration (unlike Portugal, for instance). 
:An illustration of the Habsburgs' European possessions is a valuable tool, but such a map (:Image:Habsburg Map 1547.jpg) can be found further down in the article. Albrecht 23:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany and Austria  and the map.