Talk:Iberian Union

Hispania ≠ modern Spain, but also not the whole peninsula

It is a frequent mistake to referr to kings like Sancho III of Navarre or Afonso VII of Castillia, which used the title «Imperator totius Hispaniae», as claiming control over the whole peninsula. During the high-to-low middle ages, «Hispania» was the name given to the area under muslim control, whereas the areas uncontrolled by the caliphat was frequently called «Gallaecia», as stated by Wikipedia itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallaecia . Kings that claimed to be «imperator totus Hispaniae» in the X - XIII century were not claiming ownership of the whole peninsula (which they did not control, as it was fragmented in many different kingdoms) but ascendance over the lands annexed by the moors some centuries back. The idea that a unified Iberian peninsula was a long-standing goal has therefore as much grounding as claiming that «a unified Europe has been a longstanding goal». Indeed some people did want it, but many too didn't. Furthermore, many people did want to control most of the Iberian peninsula under their own rule (the Suebi kings of Gallaecia, for example, extended their control over most of the peninsula before the Visigoths stopped their feet), not necessarily the same that eventually stablished a union of crowns in the XVI century. My point in summary: past is complex and extending present ideas into it is dangerous. The introduction of this article should be rephrased to be less biased towards the 'spain-portugal' conflict and talk more about the constant struggle for power of many, many factions and kingdoms in the peninsula (and outside: both the would-be french and british placed their own claims on several crowns).Gatonegro (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

You are completely wrong. 600 years ago, before Spain existed as a kingdom, the Portuguese were considered Spanish because Spain and Hispania were exactly the same thing. "España" was the term in Spanish derivated from the latin "Hispania" and had exactly the same meaning. It was a geographical and political idea that referred to the Visigothic Kingdom of Hispania, that is, the Visigothic Christian kingdom of Hispania. Portugal was a Spanish kingdom back then and that is probably the reason why the Catholic Kings did not call themselves kings of Spain (because they were kings of all the Spanish kingdoms except Portugal). If you read any document from 600 years ago you will see the Portuguese are called Spanish, because they were and felt Spanish just like any other Spanish kingdom. Portugal was a Spanish kingdom, Spain was the same idea as Hispania and the Portuguese called themselves Spanish and the Portuguese were called Spanish in Spain and in Mars. That does not mean that the Portuguese are Spanish today, it just means that the Portuguese were Spanish 600 years ago, as were the rest of the Spanish Christian Kingdoms: the Castilians, the Aragonese and the Navarrese.

"Aragonese, Castilians, Portuguese, all of us were, by foreigners and by ourselves, commonly called "Spanish" as today we call "German" to the Prussian, Saxon, Hanoverian, Austrian: the same way than the Neapolitan, the Milanese, the Venetian and Piedmontese are named Italians "(...)" But we are Spanish and all of us that inhabit in the Iberian Peninsula should appreciate ourselves as Spanish»

Almeida Garrett, Camoes (1825).

Also, the area in the peninsula under Muslim controll was called Al-Andalus, not Hispania. Hispania was a geographical idea, and the idea of the political unity of the peninsula, to which both the Moors and the Christians aimed at during the Reconquista.

Also, Gallaecia was a region of the Kingdom of Asturias in the Reconquista, not the name of the Christian areas of the peninsula, although some chronists called the Kingdom of Asturias kingdom of Gallaecia (back then the names of the kingdoms were not too relevant and each person called them however they liked). But Gaellicia was a province created during the Roman times, then it was a province during the Visigothic kingdom and it was also how the northwest region of Spain was called during the Reconquista. Today it is a province of Spain: Galicia but is smaller in size than the Roman province of Gallaecia.

--MetalRocks (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

References

Map

What about a map of all territories of the iberian union? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.112.160 (talk • contribs)

Resolved

 – The Ogre 13:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Two countries, right?

This article is very Portugal-centric. Even the general article History of Spain has more info about the effect of the Union on Spain than this one does. Mdotley 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

My friend! Feel free to edit! Be bold! Sorry about the excess of excamation marks!!! The Ogre 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to be bold, but I was coming here to find that information, not to add it.  :-) Mdotley 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well... I'll try to do something about it them. See you! The Ogre 11:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

personal union, not political

The 1580-1640 wwas a personal union, not a political one -- much less the coutries were somehow merged. this is a root problem with this article.--BBird 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! That was also how I learned it in school 84.241.248.37 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was just a personal and not a political union I wonder why the Portuguese had to fight for INDEPENDENCE from SPAIN. It started as a personal union (the same way as the one with England) but later it became a POLITICAL union clearly, as Brazilians know because it was during this time when Portuguese explorers and colonists were allowed to enter further away of the limits established in the Tordesillas Treaty, including half of what now is BRAZIL.--88.18.150.26 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) In Ceuta and Fernando Poo the opposite happened.

It is the same as in the NETHERLANDS...If it was just a personal union why did they have to fight for INDEPENDENCE from SPAIN for 80 years and they remember the Duke of ALBA so well...--88.18.150.26 (talk) 02:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Just look in the Luis Camoes article in Wikipedia (english) when they say "Spanish troops were approaching Lisbon...". So it was clearly a political Union, an annexation in fact.--88.18.150.26 (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Personal union de iure, political union - de facto(83.5.210.103 (talk))

Not so (that way) the Bandeirantes were not "allowed". They forced the expantion (read history, the events) - by force, who continued after. That happened parcialy in East Asia (not Ceuta, in Ceuta it was the Portuguese governor with differences with the House of Braganza, also due to (maybe in this case) strategic geographic sitiation, stayed with Phillip IV, and hand over to Spanish hands in 1668 in the Traety, neither Fernando Po, ceded to Spain in the 18th century). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.31.189 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

House of Braganza

I think that most of the "Origins of the House of Braganza" section would be better placed in the House of Braganza article than here. Does anyone object to me moving it? Ground Zero | t 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Map modified

I made a new map and i already put it up , the previous one showed too many current borders in south america .

sources for new map : [1]--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This map [2] is completely wrong from the standpoint of Portuguese colonies. I dispute its accuracy. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Tell that to the Ministry of Education of Spain (lol) or just show me another accurate map. Also the map you created is innacurate too, the spaniards had territory around the patagonia and the portuguese lands were not restricted to the angolese and mozambique coast.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Try The Penguin Atlas of African History, or C. R. Boxer's Portuguese Seaborne Empire. Unfortunately the latter is not scanned by Google, and is out of print, but I have a copy in my collection. C. R. Boxer is by the way probably the preeminent English historian of Portuguese colonial history. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is another one. The Penguin Atlas of World History p.242 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And another Concise Atlas of World History p.107 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And another [3]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

And another Historical Atlas of the British Empire, page 22. Unfortunately Amazon don't show this page, but it is a map of the world showing European colonial possessions in 1630. We see only the coasts of present day Mozambique and Angola shaded. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Territories of Portugal

According to WP:V, I am going to add little by little, depending on my available time, the sources that justify the depiction with dots of the territories of the kingdom of Portugal during the Iberian Union, as the map of the Spanish empire shows. Trasamundo (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

General view:

• [4]:spaced stations along the African coast which the Portuguese had established and enjoyed for a century

• [5]: By 1600, when the Portuguese Empire (apart from Brazil) remained no more than a string of forts and islands running from West Africa to Macau [...] As we have seen, the Portuguese Empire was wssentially a seaborne a commercial one, growing out of Portugal's traditions of maritime trade and Atlantic seafaring (although in Brazil even the Portuguese were drawn into creating a plantation economy and an expanding land-based empire).

• [6]:The structure of the empire had by the 1550s become extremely complex. There were some fifty fortresses protecting Portuguese trading factories and the larger commercial towns.

• [7]:The centre of the Portuguese trading empire in the East was India, or more precisely Goa. [...] In contrast with the smaller trading-posts, the colonial domain in Goa extended beyond the harbour region

• [8]: Goa was a key link in a chain of Portuguese forts and factories extending from Brazil to Japan, including outposts on the Persian Gulf, the Malacca Straits, Indonesia, the East and West Coast of India, and South Africa.

• [9]: Where no treaties were made or where the Portuguese were given no more than a simple right to trade along with the merchants of ohter nations, it was noy possible for them to entertain any pretensions to exclusive control (senhorio) over trade and navigation, let alone to full sovereignty over territory. Such sovereignty could only be exercised over those lands which had been formally incorporated into the Estado da India, either by conquest or by treaty, and therefore designated as a possessao of the crown. [...] Occasionally, local rulers submitted voluntarily to Portuguese suzerainty , a menas of attaining possessão hat was generally considered to be highly desirable.

• [10]: with only a small number of trading posts along the coast, it is clear that the Portuguese could not claim sovereignty over the whole 5000 km strech of Guinea from Cape Blanco to the Bight of Biagra. In fact, direct Portuguese influence on the Gold Coast extended little beyond the castle walls, and certainly not beyond the adjoining Afrivcn villages.

• [11]:The Portuguese elaborated their system on the west with a chain of forts and castles from North Africa to Angola [...] (page 17) The Portuguese penetration of the East African coast was of a different nature from that of the West Coast, as they invaded the existing well-established urban system of the Swahili towns [...] Politically though, the system constituted a group of often mutually hostile city stated with little control beyond their immediate vicinity

• [12]:The Portuguese established a chain of outposts along India's west coast.

• [13]: The Portuguese positions in the Lesser Sunda islands, Flores, Solor and Timor were, in reality, isolated communities surrounded by small stated that were vassals, antagonists or so insignificant as to be treated indifferently

• [14]:and were further distributed to Portuguese enclaves on the west coast of India, to Portuguese forts and factories in East Africa, or to the Persian Gulf.

• [15]: In those places where the Estado da India did not exercise sovereignty and the Portuguese enjoyed only the right to trade granted them by the local ruler the feitoria was generally unfortified. Such were the feitorias in Banda, Makassar, Martaban and Tenasserim. In these places, because there was no territory under Portuguese jurisdiction -not even the small area or praça that in the fortaleza was enclosed by the walls - and so no governmental function for the feitor to perform. [16]:The Lesser Sunda islands was the only area in the Estdo da India outside the Indian sub-continent where the Portuguese had the time and the opportunity to extend their authority beyond the core provided by the feitoria-fortaleza or the municipality to cover a wider territory and embrace larger populations, made up of Christians and non-Christians alike. It was the only area where they could have attemted at an early date to dreate a form of colonial administration that would not only have safeguarded their commercial interests and protected their Christian missions but might also have achieved for them a measure of control over the territories that produced the goods in which they traded. [...] Even in the Lesser Sunda islands, however, the establishment of Portuguese administration beyond the walls of the fortalezas wich the Dominicans and later the Portuguese military authorities set up successively in Solor, Flores and Timor was never seriously or sistematically undertaken.

• [17]: It is also interesting to note that Portugal's tenure on the Gold coast was in no respect colonialism as we think of it today. The Portuguese had no jurisdiction beyond theit forts, which were built with the permission of the local chiefs on land that was formally leased for the purpose.

Overview

• [18]

North east of Africa:

• Ceuta, Tangier, Arzila, Mazagan: [19]

• Arguin: [20]

• Cacheu: [21]

• Forts of Axim, Shama, Elmina: [22], [23] [24] [25] [26]

• Fernado Poo, Principe, Annobon, Sao Tome: [27]

• Summary: [28]

South east and south west of Africa:

• Luanda, Benguela: [29] [30] [31] [32]

• Sofala, Quelimane, Sena, Tete: [33] ; [34] (pages 136-146)

• Sena, Tete: [35]

• Sofala, Zanzibar, Sena, Quelimane, Tete, Mozambique, Mombasa: [36]

• Zanzibar, Pate island, Mombasa, Malindi: [37]

• Mombassa, Pemba, Zanzibar, Pate: [38]

• Sofala, Pate, Lamu, Pemba, Mombasa, Malindi, Mozambique: [39]

• Pemba, Malindi, Lamu, Pate, Zanzibar: [40]

• Summary: [41]

Persian Gulf:

• Julfar, Hormuz, Muscat, Sohar, Khor Fakkan (Corfaçao): [42]

• Queixome, Julfar, Ormuz, Mascate: [43]

• Queixome, Julfar, Doba, Ormuz: [44]

• Muscat, Sohar, Kor Fakkan: [45]

• Máskat, Hormuz, Gambrun (Comorão): [46]

• Ormuz, Muscat, Bahrein, Gombrun (Comorão): [47]

• Coriate (Quryat), Calaiate (Qalhat): [48]

India:

• Summary of Portuguese India and Western Indian Ocean (Bassein, Daman, Diu, Chaul, Goa, Sena, Tete, Quelimane): [49]

• Diu, Damao, Mangalore, Cannanore, Cranganur, Cochin, Coulao (Quilon), Negapatam, Sao Tome (Mylapore): [50]

• Goa, Damão, Baçaim, Diu, Chaul: [51]

• Daman, Diu, Chaul, Baçaim, Mumbai (Bombay): [52]

• Goa: [53]

• Cochin, Quilon, Cranganur: [54], Mylapore: [55]

• Kodungallor (Cranganore), Kochi (Cochin): [56]

• Goa, Chaul, Bassein: [57]

• Bombay, Chaul, Bassein: [58]

• Onavar, Basrur: [59]

• Honawar, Barsur, Mangalore: [60]

• Colombo, Jaffna, Nagapattinam (Negapatam), Tuticorin, Cochin, Kollam (Quilon), Cannanore, Honawar,Basrur, Mangalore: [61]

• Tuticorin: [62]

• Daman, Diu, Meliapor, Hugli, Chittagong, Macau: [63]

• Ceylon: [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]

Southeast Asia:

• Syriam: [70][71]

• Macau: [72]

• Malacca: [73][74]

• Lesser Sunda islands:

• • Summary of Lesser Sunda islands: [75][76]

• • Maps: [77][78]

• • Solor, Flores, Larantuka, Ende: [79].
  • Flores, Solor, Adonara: [80]
  • Solor: [81]
  • Ambon, Flores, Timor: [82]
  • Solor, Flores, Ende, Larantuka, Timor: [83]
  • Larantuka, Solor, Flores, Adonara: [84]
  • Solor, Timor, Flores, Larantuka: [85]
  • Solor, Ende: [86]
  • Ambon, Spanish Tidore-Ternate: [87]
  • Spanish Halmahera, Ternate, Tidore: [88]
  • Spanish Tidore, Ternate, Gilolo, Sabougo, Moro: [89]
  • Spanish Maluku: [90]
  • Ternate, Tidore: [91]
  • Flores, Timor, Larantuka: [92]
  • Flores, Timor, Larantuka, Solor: [93]
  • Flores, Solor, Timor: [94]
  • Timor (Lifau): [95][96][97][98][99]
  • Makassar only a trading post: [100]

Trasamundo (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I support that move. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Portugal had yet a Fort in Banda, even until this time?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.22.50.205 (talk) 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation needed tag

The union could have been achieved earlier had Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, become king. What exactly needs to be sourced? No scholar disputes the fact that Miguel was simultaneously heir apparent to the Portuguese throne and heir presumptive to the thrones of Aragon and Castile. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

POV?

This article is very Portugal-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Venerock (talk • contribs)

If so, please state exactely where and why. And please stop being less than polite with others editors (such as me). Comment on the edits, not the editor. Thank you. The Ogre (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to intervene about the last changes about the capital city. I believe that the matter is more related to the form that the content.

Firstly, Iberian Union is not a period of the history of Spain, but of Portugal. With this I want to say, that it does not exist a chapter in a book of History of Spain dedicated to this matter, but the issues about the Iberian Union turn out to be dispersed in a chapter of the Spain of the Austrias, or also among the chapters of major and minor Austrias, or among the different kings Philip II, Philip III, Philip IV; in the same way, there is no chapter of the History of Spain dedicated to the kingdom of Spanish Naples from 1504 to 1707. Thus, it is logical that Iberian Union is centred on Portugal, but that does not want to say that anyone has to forget its integration in Spain as if Portugal was an independent kingdom. The history of Spain is not interrupted in 1580, emerging a new state named Iberian Union that disappears in 1640, and later reappearing miraculously Spain; and the History of Portugal is not neither interrupted, where takes place a change of dynasty, but the kingdom of Portugal and its administrative system continued existing, although integrated into the Spanish system. And this leads me to indicating that it is not accurate to place an template as Template:Infobox Former Country, since Iberian Union is not a state, but the denomination of a historical period.

Actually I see slightly absurd the matter of the capital. As for the form, the map illustrates the political system of Spain according to the polisynodial system of councils, in which Portugal was integrated. It is simply a map, is not an infobox, and the map has a legend that interprets the drawing of the map. Indicating "Capital" in the legend does not explain the map, and for this, it must be removed the Capital off the map without further explanation.

As for the content, must it be included the capital? yes but not only it. Including with vehemence only the capital, it can be seen like tendentious and not neutral (as saying that Portugal did not exist). The capital was the top of an administrative iceberg very complex in this epoch. The best way to proceed is developing the article with the whole administrative structure, to treat the internal administration of the kingdom of Portugal and its relation with the King and his polisynodial system of councils, and of among them, the council of Portugal. In the kingdom of Portugal the capital and seat of the viceroy was Lisbon, whereas Madrid was the permanent seat of the Royal Court and the center of power of the whole monarchy and of its constituent kingdoms, the King could summon Cortes in Monzon or in Lisbon, but the administrative apparatus of the whole Monarchy was in Madrid, and when the duke of Lerma achieved that the king moved the court to Valladolid, all the councils, offices... moved to Valladolid [101]. With this I want to say, that if really someone wants to extend the article, then it is necessary to give verifiable information touching the necessary points, and not to shut in himself, placing anything in the wrong place, which offers to be interpreted like tendentious. Trasamundo (talk) 00:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you once again, Trasamundo, for you insight and expertise. Gracias hombre! The Ogre (talk) 16:19, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

the name(other side)

For the Portuguese "Hispania" and "Hespanha" was a geographic name for Iberian Peninsula until 1700s(even XIX century sometimes for some people, as the name "Iberia" of today), as its peninsular "homeland", but not so "homeland" as was Portugal already in Medieval Ages and Renaissence for Portuguese - Portugal already was their "nation", "homeland" and "motherland" (not only "Kingdom") - see Fernão Lopes before, Luis Vaz de Camões, António Ferreira, Gil Vicente, Garcia de Resende and many other great names.

But not for the Spanish, at least so late - the name became a "Country" or "motherland" without Portugal(as we know Spain today) and more early than 1716´s "Nueva Planta", altough "Nueva Planta" marks the unified Spain of today as the people know - altough the long spanish process has started in 1469-1512 as a united crown of crowns. From some Seals and Portraits of Philip II(and I) on Habsburg´s Iberian Union times - 1580-1640:

"PHILIPPUS II HISPANIAR ET LUSITANIAE REX DIVI CAROLI V...ISABELLA EMANUELIS LUSITANIAE REGIS F. CAROLI V IMP. MAX. UXOR"

"PHILIPPUS DEI GRATIA REX HISPANIARVM VTRIVSQVE SICILIAE HIERVSALEM ET PORTVGALLIAE" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Dynastic Union/ Personal Union

The case of Portugal+Spain has been included in both the Dynastic Union and the Personal Union articles. I am not going to change this, as it would appear that the doming view favours Dynastic Union, while in my opinion it is more a Personal Union. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to comment here. "Doming" doeesn't make sense (maybe "dominant"?). Seems to me like it's hard to say firmly which it was; I suspect citable sources would disagree with one another, and citations on both sides would belong in the article if anyone cares to track them down. I don't really have anything else useful to say. - Jmabel | Talk 15:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

apologies for the typo - it was indeed meant to say "dominant" - it would appear that the doming view favours Dynastic Union. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Map POV

Indias (Americas and Phillipines) was incorpored to the crown of Castile. Council of Indias was only a big part of council of Castile. --Santos30 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I see another evidence of your rude manners to justify the POV the placing that the Indies belonged to the crown of Castile wherever and however without taking into account either the context or meaning of the phrases.

The aim of the map is to depict the domains of Philip II, in addition to that I added information about territorial councils to show how the Catholic monarch managed the issues of his domains through the polisynodial system of Councils. At no time, the map depicts the kingdoms, states and lordships of the Catholic monarchy, so the legend neither says anything nor should say anything about the realms (kingdoms...). Similarly if it is not shown that the Council of Aragon only engaged a part of the Crown of of Aragon, and the Council of Italy the other part of the Crown of Aragon along with imperial fiefs in Italy, then it mustn't show that the councils of Castile and that of the Indies engaged with territories of the crown of Castile. If the aim of the map is not to depict kingdoms, then it is not intention of the legend of the map show something that does not appear on the map. The map is not wrong because it depicts what it tries to show, and it doesn't show what you would like to put to justify your POV of placing indiscriminately that the Indies belonged to the crown of Castile wherever and however, because that's not the purpose of the map.

And in 1524 the Council of Indies split from that of Castile. [102] La creación del Consejo de Indias (1524) desglosado ya definitivamente del de Castilla [...] La primera media fue la creación del Real y Supremo Consejo de Indias, inspirado en los de Castilla (1480) y Aragón (1494). Por ella se desgajan las indias de la matriz castellana.. Trasamundo (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

"Iberian Republic" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberian Republic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The name "Iberian Union"

"Iberian Union" is a modern name, not one used at the time, very much like the Byzantine empire. But, while the Byzantine empire article has this clarification, I've found none about this in the so-called "Iberian Union" article.

I think the best name would be "personal union of Spain and Portugal". Or even Spanish Habsburg empire, but considering this article is too Portuguese-centric, I guess it would be renamed. "Iberian Union" isn't someting that is taught in the History of Spain lessons in Spain, so I guess it's a Portuguese-centric way to not mention Spain. Back then, modern nation-states didn't exist yet, so people would consider themselves subjects of kings Philip II, III and IV of the House of Austria (Spanish name for the Habsburgs), with different cultures/backgrounds (Spanish, Portuguese), but not Spanish citizens of a Spanish state or Portuguese citizens or a Portuguese state living under one ruler. The ruler was Spanish, and lived in Spain, which was a more powerful country at the time, so it's naturally assumed to be the main partner in the union. This is not to make Portuguese people look unimportant or disrespect their legacy. Look at England and Ireland: they had been under a personal union since King John, even if the kingdoms hadn't been merged. But nobody talks about a "British Isles Union" to talk about that period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.194.151 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

The correct name would be "Portugal within the Spanish monarchy". First of all there was no such thing as a Spanish state but a composite monarchy or empire where different kingdoms and states retained their laws, coinage, etc: the kingdom of Castile, the kingdom of Aragon, the kingdom of Valencia, the principality of Catalonia, the county of Flanders, the kingdom of Sicily, the duchy of Milan. Philip II was not a "Spanish ruler who lived in Spain" as opposed to Portugal. You can say his culture was Castilian and he ruled from Castile, the most important of his empire's states. Portugal was part of what then was called "Spain", which was not a unified entity vis a vis Portugal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.63.189.182 (talk) 14:12, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

This should be taken into consideration. The name "Iberian Union" is totally anachronistic and it feels an attempt to not saying that Portugal was part of a personal union with a more dominant entity, the Spanish kingdoms that had been under a personal union for decades. It's true thay had separate laws, but the concept of Spain already existed as a geographical and cultural reality. Spain comes from Hispania, a name for the whole Peninsula. Portugal could be seen as part of Spain, but the other kingdoms had been together for a long time. "Personal union of Spain and Portugal" is the best alternative I've seen suggested in this thread. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.39.37.122 (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Royal banner of Philip II of Spain (1580-1598).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Originally it was a personal union, later it was a full union

Originally a personal union, the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain remained independent states, sharing a single monarch. Although, over time it became the same political unit, since the Portuguese had to make war against the Spanish to achieve the long-awaited independence from Portugal, as it happened in 1640. 87.223.34.73 (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The union was de jure and the facto finished with the Treaty of Lisbon 1668

The Treaty of Lisbon makes the division official in 1668 de iure and the facto as territories (Ceuta etc) are exchanged between the two parties involved and this is accepted by both and also the intermediary as the British crown. This means that the independence wasn't achieved until 1668. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Looking at English language book sources, I think it is fair to say that there is broad consensus among both 19th, 20th, and 21st Century sources to regard the Union as de facto ended with the deposition of the Vicereine of Portugal, Margaret of Savoy and the Duke of Braganza accepting the throne as John IV of Portugal in 1640, regardless of the fact that it took Spain 28 years of war to finally de jure recognize the legitimacy of the Portuguese monarch at the 1668 Treaty of Lisbon. Sam Sailor 10:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

So the iure they got the independence in 1668. The facto some territories were exchanged in 1668 with the Treaty of Lisbon as Ceuta. I understand that the borders were not defined until 1668, so the facto the Iberian Union finished in 1668. On the other hand, did the Braganza get international recognition before 1668? As far as I am concerned, not. Am I wrong if I suggest changing the date marking the end of the Iberian Union in 1668? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would violate one of our core content policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Sam Sailor 05:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Sam please find here all the research: here, here, here, here (Page 240) about the Braganza international relations that were inexistent until 1669. So now; can I change the end date of the Iberian union? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

No, you may not. And I am not going to read the four URLs you casually dumped just to prove that you are wrong in your assertion, the WP:BURDEN is on you. But if you actually do a search for sources, you will find that they widely agree on 1640 as the end of the Union. Sam Sailor 16:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Sam Sailor:; this is not some school project, your views on "international recognition" only coming by 1669 are irrelevant. Historiography has always defined the union as lasting from 1580-1640. That is what reputable sources define it as, what popular understanding defines it as, etc. A few random papers do not change that. your first source makes zero reference to the Iberian union lasting until 1668, neither does this source. Your other source even states verbatim "the separation of Portugal from the House of Hapsburg (1640) and the Restauration Wars that lasted until 1668...". The wars may have lasted longer, but the seperation was effective as of 1640. You have no sources and only claims from random papers. And on top of that, not a single source provided is dedicated to the topic of the Iberian Union or the Restoration Wars and instead only cover those subjects tangentially. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

It's no flag

It's no flag 83.168.79.18 (talk) 19:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)