Image talk:Spanish Empire.png

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Terrific work Albrecht. Have a great new year. Robert (The Dabbler from Down Under) 26-12-05

Thank you very much. Albrecht 22:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

== Awesome job Albrecht ! == [ posted: Feb 16 2006 ]

Very Important Piece of History, i've never imagined how much land have the Spanish Crown conquered at that time not to mention Two thirds of pre-US territory ---> Call National Geographics or History Channel for Mind Expanding Ideas. [Lou from Massachusetts]

[edit] Spain v Portugal

Albrecht, although the Spanish and Portuguese crowns were united for a time, the empires - indeed, the kingdoms (King Philip was Philip II of Spain but Philip I of Portugal) - were administered separately. One of the reasons that the Dutch were able to pick off so many of Portugal's colonies was that the Spanish neglected them. I think it is very misleading to include Portuguese territories in this map for that reason. Gsd2000 03:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At a time when these pre-Westphalian states were defined politically by an allegiance to the monarch I think the union of the monarchies shouldn't be understated. Mainstream history tends to portray this period as a Spanish annexation of Portugal and I think the actual sequence of events sustains this interpretation. A variety of historical factors present themselves in explaining this; Lisbon, for instance, was already becoming an economic satellite of the Seville silver monopoly in the mid-1500s. The question of administration I'd say was a matter of political (and bureaucratic) expediency and not affecting the reality of that era: Philip II and his successors effectively controlled, through viceroys and other officials (subject to the natural limitations of the time) Portugal's colonies, merchant fleet, etc.

I find the claim that Spain neglected her Portuguese Empire and allowed it to fall to the Dutch very questionable. Certainly many published histories I've encountered take to opposite view: the net effect of the Spanish annexation on the Portuguese Empire was beneficial to the latter. As you said, the kingdoms were administered separately: Portugal maintained its existing military institutions while the army and navy of Spain pledged their support without levying additional taxes. Castile therefore bore most of the financial burden for the defence of Portugal's colonies. Portuguese outposts tended to be less resilient to semi-piratical attacks than Spanish colonies partly because the existing system of defence was inefficient and the troops inferior to Spain's. Spain anyway could do little to help in the Indian Ocean where the most devastating defeats took place—and remember, the Dutch gleefully continued to prey on the Portuguese Empire long after 1640.

In any case the map does need attention, and this is not intended as its permanent form. Lack of time and expertise are my only excuses. But on the whole I disagree very strongly with your view that the inclusion of Portuguese territories on the map is misleading. Albrecht 07:08, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that I do approve of the addition you made to the caption at Spanish Empire. I had the feeling something like that was already in place. Albrecht 15:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the interpretation that there was a de facto annexation of Portugal by Spain between 1580 and 1640. Spain and Portugal shared a common monarch at the time, but just like England and Scotland before 1707, they remained separate kingdoms. In this sense, Portuguese colonies were never part of the Spanish colonial empire. Gsd2000 is also correct about Dutch seizure of Portuguese colonies in the 17th century: most of the Dutch conquests took place during the union of the Portuguese and Spanish crowns. Moreover, at least in the case of northeastern Brazil, Spain did nothing to force the Dutch out of the colony (the Dutch colonial government in Recife was later overthrown by a local Luso-Brazilian rebellion after the union of the two Iberian crowns had already been severed) .201.52.32.9 14:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I regret to hear that you disagree with the interpretation that there was a de facto annexation of Portugal by Spain between 1580 and 1640. Sadly, many historians take my view. I am well aware that Spain and Portugal remained separate kingdoms at the time: In fact, Castile and Aragon were also, technically, separate kingdoms. I am also aware that Portugal maintained its administration, language, and laws (as did most regions of Spain), and enjoyed direct control of its own affairs, against considerable incentive to the contrary. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "in this sense, Portuguese colonies were never part of the Spanish colonial empire." You're talking about a strictly anachronistic, narrow, technical sense that ignores the political reality of the time.

In what way is Gsd2000 correct about the Luso-Dutch rivalry that I haven't yet responded to? Please be clearer, and read my entry above, dated March 9.

Why have you described the expulsion of the Dutch from Brazil? Where is the relevance? I am not going to debate you on this, because it has zero impact regarding the map, but I will say that you're just plain wrong if you think Spain did not contribute what it could to the defence of Brazil. The Spanish Atlantic fleet (such as it was) fought countless skirmishes with the Dutch in attempts to secure the sea routes to Brazil. In 1634 and 1635 massive relief expeditions set sail – to which Portugal did not contribute a penny.

In brief: What are you proposing? Portuguese colonies are already colour-coded to distinguish them from the rest. They enjoy unique status in this respect. Do you want them removed entirely? I could not agree to this. Albrecht 15:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana (New France)

The Portuguese colonies under Spanish control from 1580 till 1640 were colored in pink on the map. Using the same criteria, shouldn't Louisiana (held by Spain only from 1763 until 1801) be pink as well ? That area was clearly explored originally by the French, not by the Spaniards. 161.24.19.82 10:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

No. Louisiana was ceded to Spain, and made part of the Spanish Empire, by the Treaty of Fontainbleau in 1762. Period. If you want to promote a new cartographical colouring method based on exploration, please start at Image:BritishEmpire1919.PNG. You can argue that most of eastern Canada was "clearly originally explored by the French, not by the British;" South Africa by the Dutch and Germans; India by the French, Portuguese, and Indians; Egypt by the Arabs, Ottomans, and French. You could suggest to colour these places purple, green, and neon pink respectively. Albrecht 16:02, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am just complaining about an obvious double standard. The Portuguese colonies were under Spanish control for 60 years during the union of the Iberian crowns and, on that basis, were colored in pink. Similarly, Lousiana (or, more specifically, the western half of Lousiana) was ceded to the Spaniards for (less than) 40 years and then reverted back to French rule. Yet, it appears in red in your map. 161.24.19.82 16:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no double-standard. Portuguese colonies are coloured differently because, as has been amply argued above, Portugal remained technically autonomous; its colonies, while indirectly under Spanish control, were never formally transferred to Spain. Louisiana, on the other hand, became a Spanish colony in fact and in law. Plain and simple. The length of Spanish rule has no effect on the colour (except in extremely short-lived colonies, i.e. Cambodia)—Spanish Morocco, for example, existed for only 46 years.

And my example above was meant to remind you that if you're truly concerned about misrepresentation on Imperial maps, you have much worse abuses to worry about than French/Spanish Louisiana. However, you may be pleased to hear that preparations are underway for replacing this map with a much more sophisticated one that will make these distinctions clearer. Albrecht 17:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)