Talk:Treaty of Tordesillas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are English source documents for or relating to this article that could be added to Wikipedia's sister project, Wikisource.
 Wikipedia is not a repository of source data; Wikisource is. While this article does not itself contain source data that should be moved to Wikisource, documents that could be used as sources for or relating to this article could be on Wikisource but currently are not. Please be sure the work and any English translation conforms to Wikisource's copyright and inclusion policies. The source document is:


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Merge

Tordesilhas line should be merged here. If someone has a second available... Lapaz 02:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

its been merged, but how to delete the other article? Shall I have a redirect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.240.49.132 (talk • contribs)

Your merge was incorrect in the sense that all its info already appears in this article, so just removing the merger notice from this article is all that is necessary. The text of the other article should be replaced by a redirect—don't just put the redirect in front of the existing text (if the merge has to be reverted, the text can be recovered from a previous version). I'm correcting that. Also you should have clicked on "what links here" on the redirect page to make sure that no double redirects were created. I checked and found that Tordesillas Line was redirected to Tordesilhas Line, which, due the merger, was redirected here. I corrected that also. — Joe Kress 07:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratification sites

"The treaty was ratified...by Portugal, September 5, 1494.". Does anyone knows where in Portugal? Thank you. FB

According to part 2 of the external link, the King of Portugal signed it in Setubal, whereas Ferdinand and Isabella signed it in Arevalo. — Joe Kress 06:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Credibility

This might be something that might not matter and could have been already discussed, but during class my professor brought it up that this treaty may have only been an urban legend. I might be wrong and she was not completely positive. It apparently had a lot to do with the pope and other people can anyone prove this or something? Thanks clash_division 03:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It's absolutly real and proven so in more sources then I can name. The original copies are keept in the national archives of Portugal and Spain (I just saw the Portuguese copy being shown in tv the other day), and the treaty was efective as long as both countries could impose a Mare clausum policy, that was soon disputed, de facto and de jure - see the Mare Liberum controversy by Hugo Grotius. The Ogre 14:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cantino map 1502

The old map pictured is the Cantino planisphere of 1502 held by the Biblioteca Estense Universitaria. There is good information about its significance elsewhere on wikipedia.--Nickm57 23:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong wiki links

Cipangu and Antilia shouldnt be wiki linked because they redirect to subjects totally unrelated to this treaty. I cant change it seems wiki seems to be having problem with its servers 193.47.167.202 13:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello 193.47.167.202! In fact the links are not wrong! They named the island thinking Cipango might be Japan, and the other one the mythical island of Antilia. Thank you. The Ogre 13:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong information about Treaty of Zaragozza

I found nowhere outside wikipedia the information, that the line of the treaty of Zaragoza passed close 145°E near Guam and the Marian Islands, but saw several maps (A. H. de Oliveira Marques: Geschichte Portugals und des portugiesischen Weltreichs. Kröner August 2001, ISBN 978-3520385017.) showing a line at the east coast of Kyushu, corresponding with the information at German school book publisher Klett, that the line was close 135°E. --J. Patrick Fischer 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. It raises the interesting dilemma of how to handle 'authoritative' sources that are clearly wrong. Two other citations in this class are Lines in the sea (p.3) and Lines of Demarcation 1529. But the treaty clearly states that the line is 297.5 leagues east of the Moluccas. Unlike the Treaty of Tordesillas, the Treaty of Zaragoza gives a conversion factor of 17.5 leagues per degree in the same sentence, leaving the inescapable conclusion that the line is 17° east of the Moluccas, even though the treaty itself states that the line is "almost seventeen degrees on the equinoctial" [equator]. "The fortress which is already built at Maluquo" mentioned in the treaty is probably that constructed in 1522 on the small volcanic island of Ternate, just west of the large North Maluku island of Halmahera, so its longitude (127°24'E) may be regarded as the longitude of the Moluccas for the purposes of the treaty. Klett's line of "approximately 135° east" is just east of the easternmost island, Kepulauan Aru, of the modern Maluku province, but is nowhere near 17° east of the Moluccas. The treaty also states that the line passes through the islands of las Velas (the Sails), which refers to the official name given by Magellan to the Mariana Islands, "Islas de las Velas Latinas" (Islands of the Lateen Sails), so named because the natives used proas with triangular sails. Islas de los Ladrones (Islands of the Thieves) was their unofficial name. I have not yet identified "Santo Thome" with any certainty, another island through which the treaty states the line passes. In support of 145°E are The cartography of the Orientals and Southern Europeans in the beginning of the western exploration of South-East Asia from the middle of the XVth century to the beginning of the XVIIth century by Frédéric Durand, which places the line at the eastern end of New Guinea. In the opinion of the authors of Philip II Orders the Journey of the First Manila Galleon, Father Urdaneta determined in 1560 that the line was at 147°E, 17° east if the west end of New Guinea. An even more extreme location is 162.5°E mentioned in [1]. I intentionally excluded from this list two references to c. 145°E that had no other commentary because they may have been influenced by Wikipedia. — Joe Kress 23:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Current use of Treaty

I believe, though I am not absolutely certain, that the Treaty of Tordesillas is part of the justification for Chile and Argentina's claims to the Antarctic Peninsula in Antarctica - the Antarctic Peninsula is held to be covered by former Spanish claims to the west of South America. Can someone confirm or deny this? If so, this would perhaps be the only current area in which the treaty still has some (debatable!) validity. --APRCooper 19:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Chile has indeed at least partially based its claim to its Antarctic sector on the Treaty of Tordesillas according to National Interests and Claims in the AntarcticPDF (1.2MB) and Chilean Sovereignty in Antarctica. The treaty is also invoked for its Antarctic sector by Argentina according to Argentine National Territory of Tierra del Fuego, though apparently not as strongly as Chile has. Much more strongly, Argentina bases its claim to the Islas Malvinas on the treaty according to Las Islas Malvinas (Flash), also see The Falkland Islands Dispute in International Law and Politics by Raphael Perl. The treaty is also discussed in es:Territorio Chileno Antártico, but is not listed among the reasons given in Argentine Antarctica. It is not mentioned in either es:Antártida Argentina or La Actividad Argentina en la Antártida. — Joe Kress 17:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil goes west of the line

So, how does Brazil jibe with the treaty? I've read some snippet about one man leading the conquest of the vast territory that is now Brazil's, but no indication of how he went about it, or how Spain reacted to the seizure of its lands. (Presumably, the interior of South America, if Portugal had never acquired it, would have belonged to one or another of the vice-royalties, or even be partitioned among them, prior to the wars of independence.) GBC 13:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Check Bandeirantes! The Ogre 14:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Major move of material

I am concerned about a major move of material by an anon editor from this article to Inter caetera. Two questions:

  • Should the material which was moved, actually be in both articles?
  • More importantly, the moved material is unreferenced, pov-sounding, and not exactly encyclopaedic tone - so the question is - does this material actually belong in either article, or should it be pulled out, and placed on the talk page, or on a sub-page for substantial re-writing, source-adding, and fact-checking?

NorCalHistory 23:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous editor who moved the material is the same editor who wrote it five days earlier. However, I think it goes well beyond the subject matter of either article and should not be in either article. — Joe Kress 05:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map Image issues

Regarding this revert... see Image:Treaty of Tordesillas bad align.png which was what I tried to fix. I run Firefox 2.0 at a width of about 1200-1300 or so. I think the revert was in error. Moving the maps up solved the problem for me, and does not throw the article flow off. I'll be reverting back after a chance for some discussion. ++Lar: t/c 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There having been no comment for more than a day I'm carrying out the change, but have tried a different placement and location to see if that works better stylistically. I have no special affection for any particular place, but as the image I gave shows, the current location does not work on all browsers. Firefox 2 on Win XP is way too common a browser/machine type to not support correctly. Please discuss, providing an alternate solution, before reverting back. Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 13:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Placing the maps to the left of a bulleted list hides the bullets in Internet Explorer 7 (no problem in Firefox 2), so I had to move them. I assume that placing them to the right of paragraphs causes the observed problems on a wide screen. So I tried placing the maps to the left of the numbered ref list instead, but some numbers were also hidden in IE7. So I'm moving the maps to their own section (where I had them at one time) which will hopefully not cause interference on a wide screen. — Joe Kress (talk) 07:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Aftermath

This article needs an aftermath section. I know that after the Reformation, many of the Protestant colonizing countries explicitly ignored the treaty since it was a papal treaty. That explains why the Netherlands, England, Scotland, and others ignored it. I have no idea why France ignored it or if the treaty was eventually dismantled. 128.227.185.214 (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)