Talk:Spanish Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Personal Union[edit]

Habsburg Dynastic territories located in Holy Roman Empire were not part of the Spanish Empire. You confused the term of Personal union and Colony. --Kirglach (talk) 12:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Spanish Michigan[edit]

New Spain conquered Fort St. Joseph in present-day Michigan in a 1781 Expedition. It's present-day location, the City of Niles, calls itself the City of Four Flags in reference to all the countries that once ruled it: France, Britain, Spain, and America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:25, 11 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC8A:8720:703A:8402:7515:70BD (talk)

No. there was no intention to stay in the fort and this was destroyed quickly:
  • In late 1780, governor of Spanish Louisiana Bernardo de Gálvez sends Captain Eugenio Pourré and a small force up the Mississippi River from St. Louis. On February 12, 1781, Pourré's 65 Spanish troops and 200 allied Native Americans capture British Fort St Joseph on Lake Michigan, then return to St Louis. The one-day Spanish occupation of Fort St. Joseph allows Nies residents to boast later that theirs is the only Michigan community over which four flags (French, British, Spanish and American) have flown. Spencer Tucker (2012), Almanac of American Military History, Volumen 1. p 353
  • During the American Revolution, a Spanish-led raiding party from St Louis destroyed the fort in 1781. Alan Gallay (2015). Colonial Wars of North America, 1512-1763 (Routledge Revivals): An Encyclopedia. p 655
--Trasamundo (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

page appears to be vandalized[edit]

note seemingly out of place discussion of pornography, sex.

Why is the empire portrayed so small?[edit]

The Spanish Empire was a bit bigger than what is shown, leading to misinformation. For starters, the Patagonia was considered spanish territory from the get go, with many posts and expeditions there all the time. Also, in the southern united states, Spain had territory as far as Georgia. Once again, around Oregon and Washington and even a little bit of territory in Canada. They had a lot of interest in this northwestern pacific region and their expeditions reached as far as Alaska.2001:1388:103:519B:754F:2491:1A2F:568D (talk) 20:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Though I am certainly not for a contest of which was the largest European empire since such a folly game is another way of glorifying imperialism, I agree with the argument posted here. For the longest time, the Spanish Empire was the largest European empire in the world. The British expanded larger ("where the sun never set") only in the 19th century and crumbled right after the World Wars, while the Spanish Empire expanded quickly in the 16th century and kept the bulk of its territory until the 1820s (more than two centuries). I think this issue should be addressed here. (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

No slavery?[edit]

The topic of slaves and slavery is found in this article but only between the lines. While the Spanish Empire was built upon the shoulders of enslaved Americans and Africans, coerced workers who were indispensable for sustaining the empire, there is no section here explaining its importance. I plead here the case for redressing this omission.

It was Spain (it was not called Spain, when all this tragedy began, though) the first to enslaved indigenous people in the Americas. Ask Bartolomé de las Casas. It was Spain who brought the first enslaved Africans to Hispaniola, and then to other parts of the Americas. It was Spain who set the foundation of modern racism with its religious (inquisitorial) concept of Limpieza de Sangre, and the castas, systems of thought that sustained the Spanish rule over a majority of non-Europeans and non-Whites. Etc. Etc. Thanks. (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Full article on the Atlantic slave trade here. I guess Spanish slaving in Africa and Asia need covering too.Shtove (talk) 16:16, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Shtove, Thanks for responding. I know those articles well, but since hardly anything from them is included here, they seem historical events that have nothing to do with each other. Is like, one of the articles is lying or ignoring the other. The narrative of the Spanish Empire cannot be fairly done without integrating the subject of slavery at its core. I am not referring to make occasional mention of slavery and slaves, but to explain the critical role it had in constructing and sustaining the empire (e.g., the Asiento, which is mentioned only once and concerning the granting of the rights to the British). Moreover, we should include the Spanish contribution in bringing African slavery to the Americas, and on the ideological basis for race-based slavery (e.g., Limpieza de Sangre). And, even though the Portuguese were more directly involved with slavery in Africa and Asia, as you said at the end, we need a complete coverage (19th Century Cuban slave trade in West Africa, slavery in the Philippines). The point, as Grandin's latest book explains, is, to be honest about the central role slavery played in everyday life as well as at the higher levels of government.
Perhaps, a section on slavery might not be needed as long as the topic is well integrated, and its role reasonably explained. (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a large literature on slavery in the Spanish empire which of course should be included.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Mann's 1493 is an easy read and puts it in economic context from the 15thC on.Shtove (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
I would suggest more specialist academic literature to be honest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)