Discussion:Empire espagnol

message: Bonjour, Good morning,
Nous devrions conserver pour l'instant Image:Spanish-empire-01.png,  faisant l'objet d'une controverse.
We should keep right now Image:Spanish-empire-01.png, as  is currently disputed. --Dereckson (d) 7 mai 2008 à 04:13 (CEST)
thread_title:  Image:Spanish-empire-01.png ou Image:Imperio_espa%C3%B1ol.png ? 

message: Salut a tous. Pardonez moi mais j'ai pas eut le temps de traduire tout cest qui est en bas. I'm writing to warn about several anachronous maps of the Spanish Empire (, ,  and ) that present a huge error and can be considered a breach of the Neutral point of view policy, in that they include in the possessions of the Spanish Empire the colonial possessions of the Portuguese Empire during the period of personal union of the crowns known as the Iberian Union, from 1580 to 1640.
This inclusion is profoundly wrong, and at the English wiki there was an enourmous debate about this issue (see :en:Talk:Spanish Empire), that resulted in the correct choice of excluding the Portuguese possessions from the maps of the Spanish Empire. In fact, only in the Spanish wiki, and on the ones were basically Spanish editors place the aforementioned maps, can one find those maps.
As I'm sure you know, the word Spain does not refer, in the 15th to the 17th centuries, to a unified state. Spain, or its counterparts in other modern languages, means the modern country of Spain - it was not so in the past, were it was a word, derived from the Latin Hispania, that meant the whole of the Iberian Peninsula (which includes, besides Spain, Portugal, Andorra, Gibraltar and French Cerdagne). This changes accured because of the historical processes of Castillian expansionism and hegemony 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. One of the first steps in the creation of the modern country of Spain was the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492, but this did not meant that it was then a united state - that only occured when the first Bourbon king Philip V of Spain united Castile and Aragon into a single state, abolishing many of the regional privileges (fueros) in the 18th century.
The question is, regarding the maps of the Spanish Empire, that the Kings of Portugal were for a period of 60 years the same kings as Castille and Aragon, but Portugal never stoped being an independent country. Therefore, the "Spanish Empire" in the 16th and 17th centuries was the empire of the crowns of Castille (basically in the Americas) and Aragon (these last were mainly small parts of Europe) - but not the Portuguese Empire which maintained its autonomy, even if the kings were the same in a dual monarchy (we are speaking of the dynasty known in Spain as the Habsburgs or the "Austrias", and in Portugal as the Philippine Dynasty or Portuguese House of Habsburg: Philip I of Portugal (II of Spain), Philip II of Portugal (III of Spain), Philip III of Portugal (IV of Spain)).
Notice that during this period Portugal was not a part or subrdinated to Castille (not the mention the then non-existent institutional reality of Spain, a mere geographical reference at that time). Portugal kept being an independent realm, with its own laws and administration, including most of the elite political and military personal, tax borders were maintained between Portugal and Castille, the flag was not changed, etc.
The Habsburgs had been accepted and chosen by acclamation as Portuguese kings by the General-States of the Kingdom ("Cortes do Reino") held in the city of Tomar in 1581 (see also 1580 Portuguese succession crisis). They never invaded the country, even if Castillian and Portuguese troops were used against the Portuguese troops of another pretender to the throne, and illegitimate descendent of a former king called António, Prior of Crato (see War of the Portuguese Succession).
We can, at this time and after the union, speak of an Habsburg Empire, that was in fact a Spanish-Portuguese Empire, constituted by two empires with enourmous autonomy and separation, but both belonging to the Habsburg Dynasty. The question here is not one of formal or juridical details, but one of real separation between the two empires. 
By all these reason, and others one I shall mention down below, the territories of the Portuguese Empires CAN NOT be included in an anachronous map of the Spanish Empire. I repeat, Portugal was never a part of a then non-existent Spanish State, it remained a separate crown and kingdom within the Habsburg realms, and, furthermore, no other of those realms, with the exception of Castille, possessed a Global Empire (that maintained itself after the dynastyc rupture in 1640 - see Portuguese Restoration War) with whom Spain (Castille and Aragon) had had the necessity of signing the Treaty of Tordesillas (1494), which divided the newly discovered lands outside Europe into an exclusive duopoly between the Spanish and the Portuguese, due to the extension of their respective colonial domains.
Again, the autonomy or separation between both empires was not merely formal. See what the article in the Spanish Wikipedia says about the Spanish-Portuguese Empire (my translation, my bolds):
Philip of Spain ended up by being recognized as king of Portugal in the Cortes de Tomar in 1581. Meanwhile the idea of losing independence  gave place to a revolution commanded by António, Prior de Crato (...). The Prior de Crato ended up being defeated chiefly due to the support given to Philip by the Portuguese bourgeoisie and tradicional aristocracy. To achieved to supports, Philip comited himself to maintaining the laws, traditions and privileges of the Portuguese. The same would occur with the ones occupying position in the central and local administration, as well as the military in the fleets of Guinea and India. (...) This was the begining of the personal union that would last until 1620 without relevants changes(...).
The rules of Philip I and Philip II of Portugal were relatively peacefull, chiefly because there was little Spanish interference en the matters concerning Portugal, which continued under Portuguese administration and governement.
This situation would start changing from 1620/1630 onwards, under Phlip III, and that would lead to the change in dynasty, with the acclamation as king of Portugal of the head of the House of Braganza in 1640.
In this sense the Portuguese Empire was never included in the Spanish one! And a map of both empires during the precise dates of the Iberian Union already exists!'
Have any of you ever seen a map of the Spanish Empire, particularly an anachronous map!, that included the Portuguese Empire, without it being these ones made by users in some wikiproject?
See what the following historian, in credible sources, have to say about this:
*Henry Kamen, "Empire: How Spain Became a World Power, 1492-1763" : "After the union of the crowns of Portugal and Spain in 1580... Spain found itself in the difficult position of having to respect Portuguese primacy in major areas of commercial enterprise. Philip II promised the Cortes at Tomar in 1580 that he would scrupulously preserve the independence of his new realm.  The monarchy, he stressed, was a union of free and autonomous states that operated separately.  There is no doubt that the King did his best to maintain the autonomy of Portugal.  In practice, however, the interests of Spain and Portugal became closely intertwined, thanks in good measure to the Portuguese financiers who entered the service of the Spanish crown."
*Stanley G. Payne: There was never any question of the institutional incorporation of Portugal into the Castilian system of government. The union of crowns was carried out strictly on the basis of the system that prevailed in the Spanish Habsburg empire, the Aragonese federative system of separate principalities. Felipe II swore not to interfere in the laws, customs, or system of government of Portugal and not to appoint Spaniards to Portuguese offices. This pledge was largely respected during the reigns of Felipe II and Felipe III, and even afterward under Felipe IV, so that the kingdom and its overseas empire remained completely separate and essentially autonomous under the Hispanic crown.
*Asia in the Making of Europe By Donald F. Lach, Edwin J. Van Kley  : "According to the agreement signed by the King at Tomar in April, 1581, Portugal was left with substantial control over its own administration and its own overseas empire...While continuing to govern their own empire, the Portuguese were permitted to travel within the Spanish empire and to trade freely in Spain itself. The Portuguese were not to trade or settle in the Spanish empire; an idential prohibition applied to the Spanish with respect to the Portuguese empire."
*European Colonialism from Portuguese Expansion to the Spanish-America War By Hart, Jonathan Locke, Jonathan Hart  "From about 1600 onward, the Dutch, who were in the process of a long break with Spain while Portugal had drawn closer in an Iberian union, created great problems worldwide for the Portuguese empire... In the final years of the sixteenth century the Dutch attacked Iberian colonies, while Spain and Portugal were united under Philip in an arrangement that prohibited Spaniards from settling or trading in the Portuguese empire and the Portuguese from doing the same in the Spanish empire."
*Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil By James Lockhart, Stuart B. Schwartz  "In 1580 the Spanish and Portuguese empires came under the joint rule of Philip II of Spain when the Portuguese Aviz dynasty died out.  The two empires were kept administratively distinct, but the union did create problems and opportunities for both crowns."
*The History of Portugal By James Maxwell Anderson  "Felipe...swore not to meddle in the customs and laws of his new acquisition, to maintain the current system of government and not to appoint Spaniards to high office in Portugal, and, in general, this pledge was kept.  The overseas empires of both nations remained separate."
*Spain and Its World, 1500-1700: Selected Essays Por J. H. Elliott : p. 121 - "The Dutch had taken advantage of the truce (in 1609 with Spain) to penetrate the Portuguese colonial empire, with potentially grave repercussions for the delicate relationship between Castile and Portugal."
*The Penguin Atlas of Modern History : to 1815 by Colin McEvedy, "The World in 1600 - Political Units".  .  "Philip II of Spain obtained the Portuguese crown in 1580. However the Spanish and Portuguese overseas Empires remained legally and actually distinct throughout the period of the union."
Notice that all these references, and much more can be obtained, always speak of the Portuguese and Spanish empires as distinct realities, even if in close connection between 1580-1640. In fact the Philips are always treated in modern historiography as Kings of Spain AND Portugal (which implies the separation of both realities). See:
*The Grand Strategy of Philip II By Geoffrey Parker  "At his coronation as king of Portugal in 1581...".
*The Colonial Spanish-American City: Urban Life in the Age of Atlantic Capitalism By Jay Kinsbruner,  "he was also the king of Portugal".
*England and the Spanish Armada: The Necessary Quarrel By MR James McDermott , "Philip II, as King of Portugal".
*Portuguese Oceanic Expansion, 1400-1800 By Francisco Bethencourt, Diogo Ramada Curto  "the King of Portugal, Philip II (Philip III of Spain)".
Again, do you know any map that showns both empires as being just Spanish? And notice that according to the Verifiability policy if you find a single map, even if from a credible source, that is not enough - it is necessary to demonstrate that there is a relative consensus amongst modern historians that the Portuguese and Spanish empires were, between 1580 and 1640, just called the Spanish Empire, as if the Portuguese Empire misteriously had vanished for 60 years. Were are the credible sources regarding the "Spanish colony of Brazil" or the "Spanish colony of Macau"? You will not find them, because these and others colonies always remained Portuguese.
See what the introduction to the article Spanish Empire in Encarta says :
*"At its greatest extent in the Americas, Spanish territory stretched from Alaska through the western United States, Mexico, and Central America to southern Chile and Patagonia, and from the state of Georgia south to the Caribbean islands, Venezuela, Colombia, and Argentina." (There is no mention of Brazil!)
*"In Africa, at various times Spain occupied territories in the Western Sahara (present-day Morocco), and along the coast of what is now Equatorial Guinea, including the offshore island of Fernando Póo (now Bioko)." (There is no mention of the territories that would become Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Angola, São Tomé and Príncipe)
*"In Asia, Spain ruled the Philippine Islands, which the Spanish named after King Philip II in 1542." (There is no mention of Malaca, Macau, Goa, Daman and Diu, East Timor)
And regarding maps:
*The maps by Shepherd in The Age of discovery 1340-1600 ; The Spread of Colonization, 1600-1700  - both maps cover the period of the Iberian Union and one can not find any indication that the Portuguese Empire was included in the Spanish one during 60 years.
*A map from the period (1587). One can see Brazil (Bresilia) as Portuguese territory (Lusitanis).
*Another map, by Mercator in his 1595 Atlas, says Brasilia a Portogale (Brazil to Portugal).
*A different strategy is adopted in the Penguin Atlas of World History  p. 242 - both empires are shown as just one, but are called Spanish-Portuguese Colonial Empire.
*The same publishing house, however, in The Penguin Historical Atlas of the Pacific, and The Penguin Atlas of African History shows both empire as clearly distinct. 
*Another map by renown historian :en:C. R. Boxer in his The Dutch Seaborne Empire - p. 101 - called  "Dutch conquests in the West Indies and Brazil" - Bahia is marked as Portuguese, during the time of the Dutch incursions in 1624 (in the period of the union).  
If we want maps with a precise historical date for the period of the Iberian Union, then, of course, Portuguese colonies must be represented side by side with the Spanish ones, in different colours but stating both empires to be Habsburg territories.
An completely different things is the drawing of an ANACHRONOUS map of the Spanish Empire (1492-1898) - Of course during 60 years Portugal was an Habsburg realm! But these maps are not about the territories of the Habsburgs between 1580 and 1640, but of the Spanish Empire from the 15th to the 19th century!!
There are no credible academic sources that present a map or any other sort of indication that the Portuguese Empire was part of the Spanish Empire. These maps look like an attempt to artifically enhance the extent of the Spanish Empire in Wikipedia. Since when did Brazil, Angola, Mozambique, Cape Verde, Macau, Goa, Ceylon, Malaca, Cabinda, Timor, Bombaim, etc., were Spanish!?!? Even during the Iberian Union they were refered to in Spain as "las colonias portuguesas" (the Portuguese colonies)! If the objective is to have an anachronous map with all the Spanish colonies in any given historical period, then including the colonies of a different and independent country (then and now) that was only for a brief period of 60 years in a personal union of the crowns with Spain, colonies that if included in the Spanish map would almost double the area controled by Spain, amounts to a fictional enlargement of the Spanish Empire.
The designation "Spanish Empire", as the credible sources state, only pertains to the territories that once belonged to the crowns of Castille, Aragon or the modern Spanish state, not the Portuguese territories. The colonial ensemble during the Iberian Union WAS NEVER called Spanish Empire. That is way these wrong maps must be replaced by a correct map such as . Thank you all. The Ogre (d) 29 août 2008 à 21:30 (CEST)
replies: text: Discussion ici, pour ma part je suis convaincue par les arguments appuyés par des sources fournies par Trasamundo et la carte est accpetable — Elvire [Salon privé] 11 septembre 2008 à 22:01 (CEST)
replies: text: La discussion a progresseé dans les Commons. J'ai fait une nouvelle proposition ici. À bientôt! The Ogre (d) 12 septembre 2008 à 14:55 (CEST)
replies: text: Ma position tient compte de la proposition sourcée de Trasamundo (avec référence au sens 7 de imperio du dictionnaire de la  RAE) du 10 septembre en réponse à la proposition de The Ogre du 5 septembre 2008. (Ola The Ogre ! Eu falo da Respuesta a la propuesta y otras aclaraciones que ficho Trasamundo o 10 setembro a tua Resposta e Proposta do 5 setembro 2008. E grazas porque aprendín moito con esa conversa. Saúdos) — Elvire [Salon privé] 12 septembre 2008 à 18:27 (CEST)
thread_title:  Carte completement delirant de l'Empire Espagnol 

message: Ce paragraphe est étrange à plus d'un titre : très petit, non sourcé, évasif, il laisse songeur s'il est laissé en l'état, notamment parce qu'on voit mal pourquoi évoquer le rôle des Catalans et pas celui des Basques, des Galiciens, des Andalous..., aussi déterminants sinon plus dans la colonisation espagnole du Nouveau Monde. message non signé déposé le 8 septembre 2011 à 21:01 86.209.79.120 - --— Elvire [Salon privé] 8 septembre 2011 à 21:31 (CEST)
replies: text: Je suis à peu  près d'accord, ce paragraphe a été ajouté quasiment à la création de l'article, en 2005 , depuis bon nombre d'utilisateurs de qualité ont largement enrichi l'article. A mon avis il faudrait le sourcer et l'intégrer dans une section ... qui est à créer. Si tu te sens de travailler dessus 
--— Elvire [Salon privé] 8 septembre 2011 à 21:31 (CEST)
replies: text: Surtout pour mentionner la marque Bacardí, qui n'a quand même pas grand chose à voir avec l'article. Pub déguisée ? --  Sire Enguerrand  Un bref ou une missive? 8 septembre 2011 à 22:30 (CEST)
thread_title:  Le rôle des Catalans ?! 

message: Bonjour,
Une source de qualité sur  la comparaison entre les vice-royautés de Nouvelle-Espagne et du Pérou, depuis leurs origines précolombiennes : l'exposition "Contested Visions in the Spanish Colonial World".
Descriptifs détaillés : Page Facebook officielle et page du site du LACMA.
El Comandante (d) 13 juillet 2012 à 08:55 (CEST)
thread_title:  Source à synthétiser 

message: Salut. La version de la dernière section n'est pas neutre, elle dit que Ceuta et Melilla étaient dépêche du Maroc. littéralement : "Cette colonie est rétrocédée au Maroc en 1956, à l'exception de Ceuta et de Melilla qui restent espagnoles". 
Ce n'est pas certain ce n'ont pas été des colonies. 
D'un autre côté, l'invasion du Maroc au Sahara est une version nationaliste marocaine de la même façon que l'antérieur.--88.30.1.123 (d) 29 août 2012 à 02:04 (CEST)
thread_title:  Version nationaliste marocaine 

message: Dans la partie consacrée à Charles Quint, sont longuement évoqués ses démêlés avec les protestants du Saint-Empire.
'''
Or le Saint-Empire ne fait en aucune façon partie de l'Empire espagnol, le Saint-Empire n'est pas une possession de la couronne de Castille ou de la couronne d'Aragon, la relation est purement personnelle. 
Charles Quint devient roi de Castille en 1516 (en laissant de côté la question de sa mère) et devient par exemple comte de Tyrol (le Tyrol fait partie du Saint-Empire) en 1519 (à la mort de son grand-père Maximilien d'Autriche) : le Tyrol ne devient pas pour autant une "possession espagnole", il ne fait pas partie de l'Empire espagnol (pas plus que l'Espagne ne deviendrait une "possession tyrolienne" et une partie du Saint-Empire). Charles est élu empereur en 1520. Pourquoi ? Parce qu'il est de tradition d'élire un Habsbourg, et même le chef de la maison de Habsbourg (son prédécesseur est justement Maximilien d'Autriche). Mais il y a une élection (contre François Ier et Henri VIII). La fonction impériale de Charles Quint n'a donc rien à voir avec l'Espagne. Du reste le Saint-Empire n'est même pas une possession de l'empereur (chaque prince possède sa principauté, le Brandebourg, la Saxe, la Bavière, ou le Tyrol).
Si on parle de Charles Quint, il va de soi que le Saint-Empire représente une part importante de son règne et de sa pensée politique. Mais si on veut parler de l'Empire espagnol, le Saint-Empire n'a pas à tenir une place très importante, même sous le règne de Charles Quint (il doit évidemment être mentionné, mais de façon assez générale). D'ailleurs, il disparaît dès le règne de Philippe II, non pas parce qu'il aurait été conquis par une autre puissance, mais parce que Charles Quint a décidé de céder ses possessions autrichiennes à son frère, qui se fait ensuite élire empereur (le fait que la fonction d'empereur est élective et non pas héréditaire n'apparaissait d'ailleurs pas nettement dans le libellé antérieur). 
C'est un exemple, il y en a d'autres, montrant qu'il est nécessaire de mieux cerner le sujet de la page. Jcqrcd44 (discuter) 3 février 2023 à 15:01 (CET)
thread_title:  Quel est le sujet de la page ?  

message: Est-ce une hypothèse faite rétrospectivement par des historiens modernes ? Wisdood (discuter) 16 février 2023 à 14:17 (CET)
thread_title:  la découverte de l'Amérique a-t-elle détourné les espagnols du Maroc ? 

message: Je viens de prendre connaissance de l'infobox à la suite de la suppression de "Empire colonial"
Je pense qu'il y a une erreur fondamentale, une confusion entre le statut des territoires de l'empire (hors Castille et Aragon, cad hors de la métropole) et le statut des territoires de métropole (parler de "dictature" en 1923 n'a pas de sens pour les territoires de l'empire, la dictature de Primo de Rivera se différencie du régime antérieur en Espagne et du régime postérieru en Espagne, mais en soi, cela ne change rien pour l'empire).
En ce qui concerne le statut des territoires de l'empire espagnol, l'expression "empire colonial" est général, mais correct et usuel, il désigne la situation où un Etat (ici l'union Castille-Aragon, puis (très vite) l'Espagne) exerce un pouvoir absolu sur des territoires extérieurs, excluant toute autre puissance. 
Quel est le statut de ces territoires ? Au XVI° siècle, après la conquête, ils ont un statut de "territoire conquis" soumis de fait puis de droit, mais de façon totalement unilatérale, aux conquistadors.
Puis le roi d'Espagne (Charles Quint en l'occurrence, Charles Ier de Castille et d'Aragon) crée les vice-royautés de Nouvelle-Espagne (Mexico) et du Pérou (Lima). Mais peut-on dire que la Nouvelle-Espagne et le Pérou espagnols sont "en union personnelle" avec la Castille et l'Aragon : absolulement pas ; la Castille et l'Aragon, peut-être (sous Charles Quint), mais c'est déjà du tirage de cheveux en quatre (si j'ose dire). En fait ils n'ont aucun droit autre que ce que l'Espagne veut bien leur concéder. Il n'en va pas de même pour les Pays-Bas espagnols, qui ne sont pas une possession coloniale de l'Espagne (ni de la Castille ou de l'Aragon) : là on a union personnelle, notamment parce que les provinces des Pays-Bas espagnols restent liées au Saint-Empire (cercle de Bourgogne).
Donc, il faudrait voir quels sont les droits accordés aux habitants des vice-royautés, d'une part aux sujets d'origine espagnole, d'autre part aux sujets d'origine autochtone. Je ne pense pas qu'ils aient été très étendus : en gros, c'est le roi d'Espagne qui prend toutes les décisions importtantes.
Par conséquent, j'ai annulé la modification effectuée, qui supprime l'essentiel : la notion d'empire colonial. Quant au contenu de l'infobox, il me semble inutilement chargé d'informations ne concernant pas les colonies. Jcqrcd44 (discuter) 25 juillet 2023 à 12:33 (CEST)
thread_title:  A propos du "statut" (dans l'infobox)