Skip to main content

Talk:Spanish Empire

Talk:Spanish Empire

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

Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018[edit]

"... facilitated by the spread of diseases...". It's highly unlikely that the native empires would've have been overthrown had Old World diseases not wiped out a large percentage of the indigenous population. And those that didn't perish and managed to survive were left in poor physical health. So the spread of diseases was probably the main reason the defeat of the native empires occurred and without it events would have turned out very differently. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:388:6080:14E:2984:D:DB90:D8F3 (talk) 05:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Nootka Territory[edit]

I posted the following over at Talk:Adams–Onís Treaty, but in hope that it will get seen by more people on this talk page I'm also posting it here. To be clear, the stuff about adding a "citation needed" tag refers to the Adams–Onís Treaty page rather than the Spanish Empire page. But the issue and maps made showing it are relevant to this page too. Anyway, thanks!, here it is:

I've been seeing more and more maps showing a "Nootka Territory" with well-defined borders (like on reddit, and usually an image from Wikipedia), but I have been unable to find a good source backing up either the borders or even that there was a "Nootka Territory" as anything other than an informal name for the general region. So since this page makes some claims on the topic I added a "citation needed" tag. I will continue looking for sources myself. Maybe others can find something if I can't.

I tagged this sentence: In negotiations to resolve the crisis, Spain claimed that its Nootka Territory extended north from Alta California to the 61st parallel north and from the Continental Divide west to the 147th meridian west.

There is even a map next to this, showing what it labels "Territorio de Nutca (Nootka territory; claimed by Spain; 1789-1795)". I have numerous problems with this map:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NutcaEN.png

One, the use of Spanish implies that this was an official territory of the Spanish Empire, but I have yet to find any source saying it was more than an informal name for part of northern New Spain. Two, "claimed by Spain; 1789-1795" strongly suggests that this region was not claimed by Spain before 1789 or after 1795, which is most definitely false. Third, the use of precise boundaries, which nicely lines up with the sentence I'm looking for a source about. However the map image itself, on Wikimedia Commons, provides no sources whatever, other than "Own work".

As far as I have been able to determine, Nootka Territory was never an official thing, nor was it given precise boundaries, or any boundaries at all. If a good source exists that says these things I'd love to know.

One more thing. The sentence I tagged describes the precise boundaries shown on the map (and other maps like it on other pages), but note it says these precise boundaries come from negotiations to resolve the [Nootka] crisis. But so what? During diplomatic negotiations lots of things get said, proposed, rejected, claimed, denied, etc. The final result of the Nootka Crisis negotiations was the three Nootka Conventions, none of which even mention the existence of a "Nootka Territory", let alone define its boundaries.

In summary, I'm looking for sources that describe Nootka Territory's boundaries, or even Nootka Territory as an official thing at all. If boundaries were described in diplomatic negotiations I'd like to know the context and whether it actually resulted in anything official or important.

It is hard to prove a negative, but if no sources can be found I worry that Wikipedia is spreading false information, especially in the form of maps. A nicely made map can look super-official, but most maps on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons cite no sources at all. On the Spanish colonization of the Americas are maps like this:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Imperios_Espa%C3%B1ol_y_Portugu%C3%A9s_1790.svg

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_North_America.png

These both also show a "Territorio de Nutca" with the same precise boundaries. The second one, although very pretty, even says at the large northern boundary: "61°17'N northernmost Spanish claim in Nootka Conventions". You can read the actual Nootka Convention agreements online (there are links at Nootka Convention) and nowhere is any boundary defined at all. At least a "source" is given for this map, but it is a long talk page on another map image. There is a lead there, which I will check out, although the blurb there suggests it was something from the diplomatic negotiations rather than anything resulting from them. Pfly (talk) 09:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)


I'm an experienced map maker and I can answer you. First of all, take a look into this 1817 Spanish map and check the "Posesiones españolas" texts: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5c/Provincias_Ynternas_Nueva_Espa%C3%B1a_1817.jpg The position of the texts and the coloruing clearly indicates Spanish claimed inland territories and not only coastal areas. There are three "Posesiones españolas" labels, one of them is even situated in the eastern side of the continental divide, due to the proximity to the Missouri River, which was fully claimed as part of the Louisiana. Then we have the "Poseciones [sic] inglesas" further to the East. Regarding to the delineation of these territories, I can point to the historical map representation of the Americas in the 1997 Larousse dictionary which takes the continental divide -as suggested from the 1817 map- and a horizontal line around the 60th parallel which I explain later. Nagihuin (talk) 07:44, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
The Spanish claim in the Nootka territory was effectively bounded in the East by the British claim on the Hudson's Bay watershed, which was the territory claimed as "Rupert's Land" by the Hudson's Bay Company. So the continental divide is a good compromise. If you don't take into account that British claim, the Spanish claim could be effectively extended even further to the East!, as Aranda suggested in conversations with John Jay as late as the 1780s (he suggested, more or less: "we could take the full West to East extent of Florida and Louisiana and extend that to the North Pole as a claim" -read my source on Rayneval's memoranda in the "big pretty map" of Spanish North America). Remember Spain claimed the entire Western Hemisphere in Tordesillas and waved that type of claims even in the 1790s. Only in 1670, in the Treaty of Madrid, British souvereignty in the Americas was recognized but only in occupied lands, but both powers never drew a clear line between their dominions. To sum up, take the Tordesillas claim minus the British Hudson's Bay watershed claims and due to the 1670 Treaty, and at least from the British perspective, the Spanish claim on Nootka was bounded by the continental divide.Nagihuin (talk) 19:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
It may be true that "Nootka Territory" never was a formal name used by colonial administrators but also "Mongol Empire" or even "Spanish Empire" weren't used, it was the "Catholic Monarchy" or the "Kingdom of the Spains and the Indies". All the formers are just historical names, the one we are talking about it's the name for the territories around Nootka, and it must be understood in that way. Check this 1857 reference. https://books.google.es/books?id=GddNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA209&dq=%C2%ABterritorio+de+nutka%C2%BB&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjcgN7zueTmAhWOzIUKHYUjBAIQ6AEITjAG All of those territories depended on the Viceroyalty of New Spain. We could add them to the Californias, or the Provincias Internas de Occidente, or maybe Nueva Galicia from where many expeditions departed (San Blas), but it would be even worse. It was just a new territory to be organized. Nagihuin (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
The 61º 17' north boundary -i eventually found the 61st parallel reference and I've given it as a source in the description of the big map- is probably set by the Mondofia and also Fidalgo incursions into the depths of the Alaskan bays. Nagihuin (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
So, TLDR version, source for eastern boundary, there are plenty of them, for instance http://www.hbcheritage.ca/things/artifacts/the-royal-charter (Royal Charter assigning the entire Hudson Bay watershed to British companies: Granted by King Charles II of England on May 2, 1670, the Royal Charter gave an exclusive trading monopoly over the entire Hudson Bay drainage basin to "the Governor and Company of Adventurers of England trading into Hudson Bay.), source for northern boundary, https://books.google.es/books?id=-5U-AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA410&lpg=RA1-PA410#v=onepage&q&f=false Niles' National Register, vol. 69-70, William Ogden Niles, 1846 "In all the subsequent communication of the Spanish minister to the French, and in all the correspondence of Spain with England up to the hour of signing the Nootka Sound convention, the same language is in substance held on the part of Spain, claiming up to 61º, and England never denied it"). I worked extensively to find the 17' figure minimal correction, I couldn't find it (update: I found two references, a journal article by Stephen Colston, Beyond the Aztecs, Huntington Library Quarterly, vol. 76, number 2, pp 257 to 282, and another one in Historia de Iberia Vieja, Mourelle de la Rúa, el «almirante» olvidado, by Javier García Blanco. Both point to the 61° 17 minutes figure of north latitude), but the 61st line runs through the middle of Alaskan bays and Spanish sailors reached the northernmost shores of all bays, as it is written in some texts, so the figure of 61º 17' which is given in some Wikipedia sources can be a real thing, it just needs more investigation. Nagihuin (talk). The 1789-1795 dates are not fully incorrect, they are just too strict to the material presence of Spanish military in the area, the claim was at least nominally risen from 1775 -Heceta landings in Sitka- to 1819 - Spanish passes the claim to the US in the Adams-Onís treaty-. Nagihuin (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all that. You make a lot of good points. I'll have to spend some time digesting it all. One comment though, on the 61° thing: I saw that "Niles' National Register" source cited somewhere, and read it. I think it is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. It is a transcript of a speech made by Edward A. Hannegan, an Indiana senator, to the US Senate in February 1846. This is right at the height of tension between the US and UK when the US was threatening to annex all the Pacific Northwest to 54°40', and Senator Hannegan was one of the leading expansionist voices urging Polk to not accept anything short of 54°40' even if it meant war with the UK. In other words, his speech should be taken as extremely biased and made entirely for the purpose of justifying the US right to annex the Pacific Northwest. It was in his political interest to emphasize Spanish claims over British. Maybe what he said was true, but as a source it should probably be treated as unreliable (which might also call into question the connection of 61° with the Nootka Conventions, since this speech seems to be where that idea comes from). There are lots of little details in his speech, apart from the sentence quoted, that strike me as twisting things for "political spin". Still, I think there is some kind of truth to this 61° or 61°17' thing, most likely. You mention other sources and the need for further investigation. I agree with that! Pfly (talk) 10:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
PS, sorry for saying I had "numerous problems" with your map. I'm a lot more okay with the whole topic now than I was in September. Also, your maps are well done. I especially like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spanish_North_America.png (although I did find a few very minor mistakes in the Pacific Northwest, like "Estrecho de Haro Haro Strait 1775"; date should be 1790. And "Isla Fidalgo Fidalgo Island 1775"; again the date, but also, Fidalgo wasn't named by the Spanish or even found to be an island at all until Wilkes in 1841 (and it isn't part of the San Juan Islands). A few more things like this, all very minor; it's an awesome map overall). I was going to say something about wishing maps at The Commons cited sources more, but then I remembered you have a long and impressive list on the talk page of the "big map". Thanks for that. Pfly (talk) 11:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit Until on 15 January 2020[edit]

2601:446:C280:6600:51B4:3AD0:5A92:5AFB (talk) 00:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Nothing requested, nothing to do. - Donald Albury 01:01, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Coat of Arms[edit]

This was the Royal Coat of Arms of the Spanish Empire, why is not this in the Infobox? (The Sr Guy (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC))

For starters, that's not what the description states. More possible answers to your inquiry may include opposition to pars pro toto, lack of representativeness and/or mere convenience.--Asqueladd (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
^^While the burgundian cross flag was synonymous with the empire and used in almost all of its colonies, no single coat of arms ever came close to being so (owing to the fact that the spanish monarchs coat of arms was one of the most constantly changing of major european monarchs). Even if there was one remotely close to that status, it certainly wouldn't be the coat of arms in the link above. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Flag[edit]

I think I would remove the red-yellow-red flag. It seems strange to show a flag with Eagle of Saint John right next to the Cross of Burgundy when they were two radically different states with massive differences in landmass (not to mention Francoist Spain has an article of its own).

It is true that Spain had some pockets of territory in North Africa but I don't think Spain was considered an "empire" at the time just like the UK isn't considered an Empire anymore despite it holding overseas territories.

Another possibility is using a red-yellow-red flag, no eagle since the coat of arms changed multiple times in the 19th century. I'm not used to writing English so I hope I'm explaining myself alright. Regards Alcismo (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spanish_Empire&oldid=962837034"

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Obol (coin)

Image
Obol (coin) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to navigation Jump to search Unit of Ancient Greek Coinage For the modern Greek currency, see the Ionian obol ; for the British currency, see the halfpenny ; for the brachiopod genus, see Obolidae . Not to be confused with Obelus . Obols through history Six rod-shaped obols discovered at the Heraion of Argos (above) . Six obols forming one drachma . Silver obol of Athens, dated 515–510 BC. Obv. Gorgoneion Rev. Incuse square. Charon's obol . 5th–1st century BC. LUCANIA, Metapontion. c.  425 –350 BC. Æ 21 mm. An obol of the Greco-Bactrian king Demetrius , 12  mm in diameter. A 19th-century obol from the British-occupied Ionian Islands . The obol ( Greek : ὀβολός , obolos , also ὀβελός ( obelós ), ὀβελλός ( obellós ), ὀδελός ( odelós ). lit.  "nail, metal spit"; [1] Latin : obolus ) was a form of ancient Greek currency and weight. Cont
Read more

Jacques Rancière

Image
Jacques Rancière From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from Jacques Ranciere ) Jump to navigation Jump to search French philosopher Jacques Rancière Born ( 1940-06-10 ) 10 June 1940 (age 81) Algiers , French Algeria (present-day Algiers, Algeria ) Nationality French Alma mater École Normale Supérieure Era 20th- / 21st-century philosophy Region Western philosophy School Continental philosophy Structural Marxism Institutions University of Paris VIII Main interests Political philosophy , aesthetics , philosophy of history , philosophy of education , cinema Notable ideas Theories of democracy, disagreement, the Visual, [1] "part of no part" [2] Influences Plato , Aristotle , Marx , Althusser , Foucault , Lacan , Lyotard , Badiou , Arendt , Lefort Influenced Laclau , Žižek , Critchley , Bernard Aspe , Kristin Ross , Todd May , Levi Bryant , Jodi Dean , Gabriel Rockhill Jacques Ra
Read more

2000–01 California electricity crisis

Image
2000–01 California electricity crisis From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia   (Redirected from California Energy crisis ) Jump to navigation Jump to search Chronology [1] [2] [3] 1996 California begins to modify controls on its energy market and takes measures ostensibly to increase competition. September 23, 1996 Pete Wilson signs Electric Utility Industry Restructuring Act (Assembly Bill 1890) and it becomes law. [4] April 1998 Spot market for energy begins operation. May 2000 Significant rise in energy prices. June 14, 2000 Blackouts affect 97,000 customers in San Francisco Bay area during a heat wave . August 2000 San Diego Gas & Electric Company files a complaint alleging manipulation of the markets. January 17–18, 2001 Blackouts affect several hundred thousand customers. January 17, 2001 Governor Davis declares a state of emerge
Read more