Talk:Spanish Empire/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

I have heard that although Portugal was absorped into Spain for a period of time, the colonies were never Spain's, and continued to be ruled by Portugal. Does anyone have evidence proving otherwise, if not I may have to take the purple off the map...

"Spain" in the 16th & 17th centuries didn't refer to a unified state (Castile and Aragon still retained their seperate identities, institutions, laws and traditions as much as Portugal - the term "Spain" was a geographic expression for the Iberian Peninsula. Thus Spanish indicated something was of that peninsula. The unified state of Spain officially came into being only in 1714. The Spanish empire of the 16th & 17th centuries simply refers to those territories that where under those who occupied the throne of Spain (namely the Spanish Habsburgs) who also happened to occupy the throne of Portugal (in "personal union" of the two thrones) from 1580 - 1640. Perhaps it'd be better calling it the Portuguese-Castilian-Aragonese empire - a mouthful, that doesn't give us as good a handle on our object of study as "Spanish empire" - how it came to be, evolved and disintegrated.

I have no Idea what Newfoundland is doing on the map, but it shouldn't be there. John Cabot was Italian, and he claimed the Island in 1497 for England!

Spain had a near monopoly of Atlantic trade in the 16th century. Consequently, the Spanish Basque fleet dominated the island during the early colonial period of migratory fishing settlements (I shouldn't have to explain this; it's in the image description). Interestingly, while the Armada defeat barely dented the Spanish war navy, it was the loss of so many merchant ships in 1588 that allowed the French and English to establish themselves in the region. Albrecht 22:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

But was it claimed as a Spanish Colony, as I said in 1497 it was already claimed by England, however not settled until about 1583 or so. What Spanish influence was there? What Spaniards settled there/ Set foot and claimed it in the name of Spain? How it can be considered a Spanish colony because a lot of Spanish ships fished in the area is beyond me. --Arthur Wellesley 5:50, 29 December 2005 (EST)

From Image:Spanish Empire.png: "Pink: regions of Spanish influence: explored or claimed but never controlled (i.e. Amazon, British Columbia, Papau); or controlled but never claimed (i.e. Newfoundland )..." Maybe colouring the whole island is a bit overzealous, but honestly, after putting that shockingly ridiculous British Empire map up on this page, you're in no position to complain.

In any case, I'll reexamine the matter and modify the image accordingly. I have no problem removing the island entirely if the facts warrant it. Albrecht 23:14, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I made the British Empire map shocking to make a point, however, when I think about it, what is wrong with it? Is argentina a turn-off for you? Maybe you do not know the history of Argentina...--Arthur Wellesley 2:05 AM, 1 January 2005 (EST)

I know it well enough. For instance I know of a delightful British invasion of Buenos Aires in 1807 that gave the Spaniards the opportunity to redecorate their cathedrals with British colours. I also know that only a nutcase would consider that country part of the British Empire – let alone a "formal British colony". Albrecht 07:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why Newfoundland is in the map. Portugal and England claimed Newfoundland at the end of the 15th century, although the portuguese were the only really interested in exploring it, in the first half of the 16th century. Later the french and the british took it, so I don't see where spanish enters heres. I am missing some document?--Câmara 14:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete this: Spain was the center of one of the the earliest Global Empires. During the 16th century and 17th century Spain established an empire with many far flung outposts. At its height the Spanish Empire was roughly 7,500,000 sq. miles (19,425,000 sq. km.), almost all centred in the Americas. Castile, along with Portugal, was in the vanguard of European global exploration and colonial expansion and the opening of trade routes across the oceans, with trade across the Atlantic between Spain and the Americas and across the Pacific between East Asia and Mexico via the Philippines. Conquistadors from the territories of the Crown of Castile (mainly Extremadura, Andalusia and Basque Country), laid claim to vast stretches of land in North and South America. Its colonies sent back gold and silver to finance the military capability of Habsburg Spain in Africa and Europe. Between the incorporation of the Portuguese empire in 1580 (lost in 1640) and the loss of its American colonies from 1800 it was one of the the largest in the world by territory even though it suffered declining and fluctuating military and economic fortunes from the 1640s. At her height Spain dominated the oceans with her experienced navy, and it is said by some that her soldiers were the best trained and most feared infantry in their time. The Spanish Empire had its cultural golden age in the 17th century.

again.

What land did Spain controll on Antarctica and Austrailia? NONE, I challenge it even being called a global Empire. Why don't you want how big it was? because it was half the size of the British Empire? It was not the largest Empire ever the British, Mongol, and Soviet Empires were all larger!!! And you have to say "IT IS SAID BY SOME", because the vast majority of people don't agree with what you are talking about

What in the world is this: "Because of its new experiences it also helped prompt some of the first early modern thoughts on human rights, sovereignity, international law, war and economics and even the questioning of the legitimacy of imperialism, in related schools of thought referred to collectively as the School of Salamanca."!

Complete and utter rubbish. Lies lies lies. I have deleted this completely false claim. The Spainish fought hard to keep their colonies and what in the world is the term "human rights" in there for? Conquistadores and Inqusition spring to mind. Look at how the 13 English colonies were run, and look at how the Spanish ones were run, and this person dares to claim shit like this!

--Arthur Wellesley 9:10, 28 December 2005 (EST)

I don't think "Arthur Wellesley" should be allowed to make any changes to this article. He certainly seems to come from that British (just look at his name) school of though that espouses the black legend and such. (Bill)

You come from the school of thought that thinks that the Spanish Empire wasn't cruel, which is simply not true. I can make whatever changes I please, you cannot discriminte against me for my beliefs, simpley because you disagree. I can only imagine what the article would look like if you said that about everybody that disagrees with you. You make a lot of sense, "Ban Arthur Wellesley, he doesn't agree with us"

• Lord Wellington was Irish, and a jolly hard-drinking cunt too. He hated that Trafalgar fucker, the kiss-me-Hardy twat, Nelson, and the rest of humanity too. As for the poor old Spanish, they were the first Europeans to sight Australia, two hundred years before the English, during the Solomon Islands voyage. The native language is no longer spoken in that continent. Is "Arthur Wellesley" an inferior alternative to the German User:EffK? In any case, God bless British imperialists: so slightly less crude than their Prussian brothers.

This article is very poorly written. Its English is quite awkward in its construction, and it reads as the Spanish entry some sort of imperial pissing contest. The article lacks objectivity and really needs to be rewritten.

I would disagree. It is refreshing to read an english language article on spain's history that doesn't constantly bash it. Spain had a very powerful empire for a time and its military was pretty kick ass too. Most english language (especially british) historians would have everyone believe spain was never anything more than a land of incompetents.

---

This Page is much to pro spanish. Its mention the defeat of the vaunting armada of Spaiis ridiculous! Possibly the most important battle in history,and one of the greatest victories in history, and it is mentioned in a few sentences? Queen Elizabeth was not "meddling", she wasn't on the pirate ships with Sir Francis Drake. What about the horrible treatment of the indians in South America? The colonies on that map had more slavery than the rest of the other European slave trading nations put together. The British only had 5% of the slave trade, yet there is mention of it on the British Empire page..

The Spanish Empire pales in comparason to the GREAT BRITISH EMPIRE!

RULE BRITANNIA

--Arthur Wellesley 10:39, 27 December 2005 (EST)

What you can see above is yet another example of a primitive and wild brit trying to act like if he knew something without mentioning how good and glorious the British empire was. Just a few glances at the Mau Mau Uprising in Kenya, Amritsar Massacre in 1919 (does anybody know a single hindi who likes brits?), Malaysia War, etc. The guy also forgot to mention that in 1714 the UK became the only provider of black slaves for the Spaniard Crown. And about the slaughter of natives in South America, it's obvious there were some by those bloody Conquerors like Pizarro, maybe the bloodiest and darkest man in the Spaniard colonial history, but actually the Spaniards were the 1st colonial power in the region that worried about the human rights of the american natives (what those awful conquistadores and creolles did during the 1st years of occupation was something different however). Which is something realy different from the total elimination of natives carried out by the brits in the 13 colonies or the few human rights that the hindis, zulus, and other people had in their own lands which were cruely and mercyless ruled by the Union Jack.

I am an American and what you are saying is completely false. The British Abolished the slave trade in 1806, the Spanish much later. Only 5% of the slave trade was British. If you include your little Portugal, Spain was the world's biggest slave trader in history! My friend is Hindu and he is very pro-British. The Sepoys even helped Britain. The Armistar Massacre guy has been nominated for the BBC thing on the 10 worst Britons of all time, so go ahead and mention him. The Spanish Empire was Oppressive, didn't give any rights except for the few Spaniards in the colonies, it was horrible, and all it's colonies are third world. Infact most of their wealth can be contributed to Britain. You forget that Britain invested $3.7 billion into S. America in 1914, when their GDP was about £3.7 billion...

--Arthur Wellesley 10:10, 28 December 2005 (EST)

Britain's slave trade in the 18th century was the largest ever by a very great margin and damn lucrative! Lets not point fingers - all are guilty as charged. All that can be said is that thoughtful people everywhere - including notable people of the "School of Salamanca" stood up to defend individual rights and even questioned the legitimacy of imperialism from a very early date in the period of European colonial expansion. Charles V passed laws to protect natives in the 16th century - but as usual these were ineffective in the deep reaches of the empire - where European colonisers took advantage of their isolation to do as they wished with the natives. Slaves under Spanish law had rights - they were never reduced to the level (in law) of slaves under the vastly larger British slave trade. But of course who was there to defend the slaves against their masters - Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch French or English? (And of course the English replaced slavery with the less harsh, but still harsh, system of indentured labour) Finally, the majority of people in Latin America (apart from Argentina) are more American Indian in origin than European. Still, imperialism is imperialism - it is about taking advantage of a disparity of power to sieze other lands. Simply put - it is a bastard of a thing to do. Rob 3 Jan 06 PS - as an Australian should I mention the treatment of Australian Aborigines right up until the 1930s - no, better not - still far too raw for many to handle even today!

Global means it had colonies on every single all the contients of todays world i believe which is true it was the first to do so.

That is a lie, Spain did not had colonies in all the continents, Portugal did. Portugal had colonies in America, Africa and Asia, Spain only had colonies in America. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.140.243.173 (talk • contribs) .

I believe the first sentence is not correct: 'Habsburg Spain was the center of the first global empire.'. What exactly does this mean ? I think there were many empires before the spanish that could be called "global"(like the mongolian empire, the Umayyad Caliphate,etc). (Anonymous)

A glance at the globe reveals that the Mongol Empire was Asian, the Ummayad Caliphate stretching from Persia to Morocco. 'Habsburg Spain was the center of the first global empire' is a sensible statement, which might make a reader stop a moment and visualize. --Wetman 06:24, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, Wetman. I don't understand what exactly is the criteria for calling a empire "global" ? Is it the size ? The number of subject cultures? The number of continents ? (The mongolian empire ruled a large part of Europe and the Umayyad caliphate ruled Spain)

I also disagree with this sentence. What about Roman Empire? What about Macedonic Empire? If we´re talking about modern empires, Portugal started the navigations by colonizing many surrounding islands and North African coast. It seems preety weird to me...

---

When I said that Charles was the most powerful man in the world, I was being brave. How did his power compare with that of contemporary mogul or Chinese emperor? -- Error

---

I think it is something of a stretch to say that Spain's "golden age" extends up to the 19th century, and that Spain remained a global superpower until the Spanish-American war.

Spain did not exist in the 15th century, there was only the budding Mediterranean empire of Aragon.

Politically, Spain was only a superpower in the 16th century, under Charles I and Phillip II. Charles and Philip squandered the American riches in pointless wars across Europe, defaulted on their debt several times, and left the Spanish people generally bankrupt.

In the 17th century, France was the superpower in Europe, and England in the Atlantic. Spain did have a huge overseas empire. The kings Philip III and IV were puppets of their ministers and the church, and so inbred that king Charles II was retarded and impotent, dying without a heir and leading to the war of succession.

After the spanish war of succession (1713) the European powers decided what the fate of Spain would be, in terms of the continental balance of power. As a result, in the 18th century Spain was basically a client state of France, and hardly a superpower.

In the 19th century, Spain was taken over by Napoleon without firing a shot, the Peninsula war ensued, followed by a power vacuum lasting up to a decade and turmoil for several decades, civil wars on succession disputes, a republic, and finally a corrupt liberal democracy. Spain lost all the colonial possessions in the first 3rd of the century, except for the swaths of desert generously given to it by the European powers when they partitioned Africa, and Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines (lost to the USA in 1898).

Also, culturally (in literature and art) the golden age (siglo de oro) was in the 17th century, coinciding with the political decline and fall of the Hapsburgs (Phillip III, IV and Charles II).

Conclusion: Spain was a superpower in the 16th century, maintained an overseas empire until the early 19th century and had a cultural golden age in the 17th century. Nobody in Spain would call anything after 1700 a "golden age".

Miguel 17:54, 2004 Apr 5 (UTC)

Traditionally, historians mark the Battle of Rocroi (1643) as the end of Spanish dominance in Europe (I say dominance without a smirk - even with the bankruptcies and inflation suffered under Philip II of Spain and Philip III of Spain, it is important to note that Spain was still able to capably fight the Dutch, French, Swedes, and a host of Protestant countries on land in the Thirty Years' War, and even with the disaster of the Armada in mind, few can doubt that the Spanish fleet was among the strongest in Europe until the 1660s, when it suffered real humiliation. The Spanish were still able to fight capably at sea in the war.

It is indefensible to say that the Spanish were a world power at any point in the nineteenth century, save for a brief spit in the 1870s when the capable Alfonso XII of Spain and his thoughtful ministers succeeded in restoring some vigour to Spanish politics and prestige. In the nineteenth century, their sizable empire in the Americas made them relevant, but it is difficult - even in light of Floridablanca's reforms - to say that they were anywhere near the ranks of Austria or Russia, let alone France or England.

One thing: there's this Spanish Empire page, and then there's the History of Spain page. Maybe we should make a History of Spain series like they have for the History of France...

Adam Faanes 20:23, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The new major revision starts out with the assertion that Spain was "the first modern state in Europe", but doesn't explain that statement. "It had three empires"-- was this a legal definition used by the Spanish government?

The Spanish Empire was the combination of Castille's Atlantic empire, Aragon's Mediterranean empire, and the European possessions of the Holy Roman Empire.

Castilla and Aragon were independent kingdoms, and the marriage of Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon did not result in the merging of the two realms. Their daughter Juana inherited both crowns and married Philip, heir to the Holy Roman Empire. Their son Charles inherited all three crowns, and reigned as Charles I of Spain but was known in Europe as (Holy Roman) Emperor Charles V.

Charles I is arguably the first king of Spain, and it is somewhat anachronistic to talk about Spain before he became king in 1516.

Spain can be said to be the first modern European state because it is the first european state where the feudal system is systematically dismantled by the monarchy (and this is the meaning of the word modern in this case), at the very beginning of the 16th century, decades if not centuries before similar developments in the other major European states. Spain Portugal might be an exception, but it was absorbed into Spain during the reign of Charles' son, Philip II.

Miguel 00:34, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is this factual correct? The Spanish were preceded by the Portuguese which in terms of geographical dispersion can also claim to be Global.

True. For that matter, while not truly global, the Mongol Empire was quite possibly the largest to ever exist, in terms of both landarea and population. LordAmeth 03:15, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Was the Portuguese empire before 1580 really any more than a network of coastal emporia connected by sealanes? Portugal never penetrated India or Indonesia. Was not the Mongol empire an Asian empire rather than a global empire? --Wetman 04:12, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The fact that Portugal gained territory without war, doesnt mean it wasnt part of the Empire. Portugal established trading posts, because it was its way to do things ($$$$), this form of colonialism lasted until the 19th century when the other powers issued Portugal to effectivelly control its empire. Even though the other powers didnt conquer Portugals possessions even if they were wild and in the hand of local tribes. Having an empire doesnt mean to have a soldier in every corner and subjugate everyone. The inland exploration was done throw the trading post with intermarriages and what the tribes could exchange, the Portuguese often gave mirrors and other small things that the Africans were interested, and the Africans often gave slaves, gold and other products. Or even exploring in seahc for what they wanted. Portugal interrests was controlling the costal areas, and it did in Africa, India, Brazil, Indochina and Oman. ---Pedro 16:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that the "first global empire" phrase may introduce some factual difficulty due to its exclusive nature (surely it can be rephrased in a way that eliminates the above objections). But I also think that Wetman's overall assessment of early Portuguese colonial possessions is essentially correct: a network of trading outposts, however well established or ingeniously administered, does not necessarily qualify as an "overseas empire" (just so you know, the Spaniards pursued similar small-scale colonization efforts in Formosa, Papua, and countless smaller islands in the Pacific – these are very rarely mentioned in geographical descriptions of the Spanish empire). You've argued the merits of the Portuguese colonial system with obvious conviction, Pedro, but without offering much of substance in the framed context of the discussion. Let me remind you that no one here has claimed that Portugal's early trade system was ill-conceived or unprofitable. However, I think the matter stands that with the conquest of inland Mexico, Peru, and the Philippines in the 16th century, Spain established overseas dominions on a scale never even approached by any of its predecessors, Iberian or otherwise.

As for neutrality, I'm tempted to remark that as someone with a Portuguese flag on the vanguard of his user page, and whose entire argument seems limited to "Portugal did it first", you ought perhaps to examine your own biases before indicting the work of others. Albrecht 20:07, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not the one who's limited, maybe that's you. What's wrong with having flags in my userpage? Surely that makes me limited and surely that makes me POV. But most surely that makes you insane. Portugal didnt need to conquer, because there was no such thing as Incas or Aztecs in Africa or Brazil.--Pedro 10:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No Such thing as a Superpower before the Cold War!!! That is why we don't use superpower for the British Empire, which was much bigger and more powerful then the Spanish and beat the Spanish Armada on many occasions.

Wrong. The Superpower article explains that both Britain and Spain can be called "superpowers" in retrospect.

The British Empire of the 19th century was "bigger" than the Spanish Empire of the 16-18th centuries only for the same reason that the latter was larger than the Roman Empire of the 3rd century: better transportation technologies (nominal claims to huge tracts of uninhabited and uninhabitable land in the Arctic and in Australia also helped).

As for being more powerful, I think you forget that although late-Victorian Britain was a heavyweight on the seas, it had virtually no army to speak of on the European scale. While Spain dictated events in Europe at the height of its power (doing battle with the French, English, Ottomans, Italians, Germans, Portuguese, Swedes, and Dutch with relative impunity), Britain variously feared war with France, Germany, Russia, and the United States, and sat back and watched as a new Europe was forged in the battles of the Franco-Austrian, Italian Unification, Austro-Prussian, and Franco-Prussian wars.

And you're just deluding youself if you seriously think that the Spanish never beat the British at sea, and badly. Cartagena, Toulouse, Havana, Cadiz, Santander, the Azores, and Puerto Rico will testify to your folly. Albrecht 20:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

The Portuguese Empire was indeed the first colonial empire! Due to the fact that Europe was busy with their own wars: Spain was actually still conquering its territory (war with the Almohads) England and France was still disputing their own war, the united Provinces (Holland) were still trying to unify their Provinces. Portugal was yet ready to go abroad and look for strategies to gain the power of species. Portugal conquered lands that were barely inhabited, they found little opposing powers! (anonymous)

There are also definition problems. "Occupation on most lines of longitude" qualifies Inuit areas. "Land area" includes China and Mongol empires. "Scattered isolated settlements" brings Polynesian areas up for comparison (Portugal had many Atlantic/Mediterranean areas and a few Pacific, while Polynesians had much of Pacific but none around Atlantic). Should we bring in the Vatican's influence? The Vatican negotiated the American border disputes. (SEWilco 20:26, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

The definition probably isn't as ambiguous as you're trying to make it. It seems pretty clear to me that "global" is a longitudinal function, not a latitudinal one. Possessions in Europe, the Atlantic, the Americas, the Pacific, and the Far East qualify Spain as having a global presence in this sense. Portugal, while also meeting this criterion, did not conquer the extent of territories commonly associated with "empire", as discussed above. Albrecht 03:43, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

In short: One. Spanish empire is usually referred to as a global empire for a reason: you could navigate around the world being the longest trip between Spanish possessions shorter than half the diameter of the planet earth. Two. Although there's no objective reason for it, usually colonial empires are not treated as empires. The same case for Spain and Portugal goes for Roman (empire) and the Greek (colonies). Regards, --Iluntasun 19:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I think that a person that have pratically all its edits in wikipedia relating to Spanish things should review its neutrality before debating a subject. What you said to me goes for you. Besides wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, is not a research forum, and of what you think in your ignorance. -Pedro 10:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why not putting some facts? Portugal first lands in the continents:

Africa 1415 (Ceuta, and after that almost all african coast) Asia 1498 (Calecut, other indian cities after, ceilan, cities in arabia, persia, malasya, siam, indonesia, macau, formosa, nagasaki) North America circa 1500 (Newfoundland and Labrador) South American 1500 (Brasil) Oceania (Timor 1513, after that other melanesian islands, better define what is oceania or not)

I don't see when did the spanish getting before the portuguese in oceania. AFAIK, Portugal was the first global empire, spanish the second.--Câmara 14:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

This article even starts in 1402, to set a date before 1415 - what a stupidity. Dates for the Empires: http://www.timelines.info/history/empires_and_civilizations/ -Pedro 16:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

From my point of view, it's quite clear that the period before the crowning of Charles I means not the existence of the empire, but a necessary set of information in order to understand what comes later.--Iluntasun 19:09, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No one could seriously defend this map, which shows all territories claimed by Spain at any period between 1492 and 1898, including territories in southern Saskatchewan never penetrated even by Spanish explorers, the Falkland Islands claimed by Argentina, S. America divided by the Tordesillas line through uncharted Amazonia in the middle of modern-day Brazil yada yada yada, yet doesn't show Portugal, a Spanish possession 1580-1640. Let's have a real map, taken at some particular date, that authentically shows the real reach of the Spanish empire. This one is too silly properly to discuss. --Wetman 03:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC) (The map has been switched; there was no "confusion". I shall not have any further comments here. --Wetman 15:49, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

(Note: the above was the product of confusion resulting from XGustaX having tampered with my map, pictured right.)

Some thoughts on my own work:

• Anachronous maps are no novelty on Wikipedia; they serve a valuable purpose by depicting simultaneously what is very complicated to convey in succession. If possible and practical, we could expand colour-coding to depict territories lost by 1824 and 1898, but this can also be described quite succinctly in the article text (in fact, one reason my image is in such a sorry state is because I also was horrified at Gusta's map and rushed to make a replacement – edit histories will confirm this).
• The territory skirting the south of Canada was part of the Louisiana colony, ruled by the Spanish 1763 - 1801 and de jure administered under Spain until the Louisiana Purchase. I'll grant you that a portion of the U.S. interior ought reasonably to be pink, but the map is of course subject to revision and it's hard to find sources with precise boundary information.
• The Falklands have belonged to the United Kingdom since 1833; but I hardly see how Argentine claims can cloud the fact that the islands were under Spanish control for certain periods in the 18th century.
• My dividing line in the Amazon is based on an antique map from the 18th century that clearly delineated the Spanish and Portuguese spheres of influence. I have taken special care to investigate similar minute details, but of course my imperfect hand has likely marred other areas with faults. I welcome corrections and collaboration, especially with regards to Portuguese possessions, a sphere in which only dedication and research can compensate for my lack of knowledge. Albrecht 04:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

My two cents:

• The map currently in the article needs to die; it replaces the debatable accuracy of an asynchronous map with the utter horror of simply omitting everything connected to Portugal.
• I suspect (though I haven't had a chance to check) that a map about midway through Philip's reign will be almost equivalent to the one above. If we're to pick a single date for a map, that might be the best option (similar to the use of Hadrian's reign as a point for showing the Roman Empire).
• Alternately, some more work with the colors could let us use an asynchronous map to show the change in territory over time. That may be too complicated, though. —Kirill Lokshin 14:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

A map from the 1790s actually would probably be closest to what I have so far in the Americas (the only differences of note being the loss of the Guianas, Belize, Jamaica, Haiti, and other Caribbean islands). Working with the colours is possible, but I cannot agree that an asynchronous map is inaccurate or misleading: I think it serves a valuable purpose by depicting at a glance what could otherwise only be obvious after careful study of many maps or a thorough reading of a list of territories. How could any fixed-date map show the Spanish puppet-kingdom of Cambodia (1594-1599)? Albrecht 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• The asynchronous map is the way to go, unless you want a series of maps distributed at various points along the entry. The asynchronous map does need fixing in north America. It gets Europe & Morocco right - Rob 20 Dec 2005.

I was pretty careful to get North America right – if Spanish territory looks inflated, it's probably because of Louisiana. Also keep in mind that the Spaniards controlled the Pacific Coast from California to British Columbia (see Juan Francisco de la Bodega y Quadra), in which they established a significant military presence in the 1790s. As previously stated, the interior of present-day Oregon, Washington, and parts of Nevada, ought to be pink – but these are very minor concerns compared with what we're currently displaying on the article. Albrecht 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Since there seems to be a consensus (not long in building) that my map is preferable to the monstrosity discussed below, I will restore my version. I trust appropriate action will be taken if XGustaX continues to revert. Albrecht 19:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Spanish EmpireMap.png

I don’t agree with this map of the Spanish Empire, because it includes the Amazon basin, under the argument that "although not colonized they were still Spanish lands because of the Treaty of Tordesillas". If this argument is valid, so all North America should also be considered as Spanish, as well as the west part of Greenland. In the other side of the map, New Zealand, the east part of Australia, the east part of Russia (e.g. Kamchatka Peninsula), all should be considered as Spanish. All territories where the Spaniards were never established. Like in the Amazon basin... --17:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC) [Manuel de Sousa

That's only part of the problem—Spain has, in this map, lost Portugal and gained Austria-Hungary ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 17:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I suppose that is based on Image:Habsburg Map 1547.jpg, which shows the Euopean territory of the Habsburgs. What I don't understand is what the blue area tries to represent. There must be many more areas that have been claimed by other countries. Eugene van der Pijll 17:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably true, although that gets us into the distinction between the Habsburg empire and the Spanish one. In any case, why isn't Milan colored? —Kirill Lokshin 17:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The problems with this map are too many to list without omitting some of them. It is everywhere overzealous and nowhere consistent. Why is does it acknowledge the loss of Haiti but not Jamaica, for instance? By Cristo, we'll reclaim that island from those English dogs yet, amigos! Albrecht 20:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your map admits to Jamaica also being part of the spanish empire. It also includes a bunch of the Islands in the Lesser Antilles which is completely off I ready showed you my source for my map on Encarta and you totally disregarded it so I am going to revery you now just like you did me you hippocrite. ALso for the people asking about the light blue on some of the maps ive seen Britian Spain and Russia all Claim Orgeon country at the same time. Yeah im aware milian is missing but im still working on my map

Do you have anything to say that isn't characterized by ranting and personal attacks? It must be thrilling to type, but it sure is boring to read. All of the Lesser Antilles except the British Virgin Islands (not pictured) were Spanish throughout the 16th century, although many, like Saint Kitts & Nevis, Guadeloupe, Dominica, and St. Lucia, should admittedly be pink and not red. This is easily fixed.

Besides its more pressing problems, Image:Spanish_EmpireMap.png is a jarring departure from the standard Image:BlankMap-World.png format which is used throughout all geography articles (and certainly to illustrate European empires; see British Empire, Portuguese Empire, French Empire, Dutch Empire, Italian Empire). You need to accept the fact that I didn't replace your map out of spite; I did so because it had serious problems. Work with us, please – all the time I could have spent improving my image over the past day has been wasted in edit wars with you. Albrecht 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Albrecht's map gets some little islands wrong. Yours misses Portugal (Portugal!) and all of its colonies. I think his is a better option, for the time being. —Kirill Lokshin 21:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

File:Spanish EmpireMap.PNG

Ok, looks like we have two maps, which I will call A and B:

It looks to me like Map B is the better option, for a number of reasons:

1. It uses the standard base map that's used on other geographic articles.
2. It correctly distinguishes Habsburg versus Spanish lands—map A seems to have added Hungary, Bohemia, and parts of Poland! to Spain.
3. It does not create an artificial border over the Treaty of Tordesillas line (which was never really honored in any case).

I've placed Map B in the article for the time being, since these seem, to me, to be convincing reasons. I'd appreciate if, before running into a full-scale revert war, anybody who prefers Map A could respond to the concerns I've listed. —Kirill Lokshin 03:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

On point two: Why is the Netherlands included in map B? It was never part of Spain; it was part of the Habsburg empire before 1581, just like Austria-Hungary was before 1556. Eugene van der Pijll 09:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're wrong: the Netherlands were made part of Spain when Charles V divided his territories among his sons in 1556. Remember, when they rebelled in 1568, the Seventeen Provinces did so against Philip II of Spain. There can be no confusion on the issue: the Low Countries were territories formally tied to the Spanish Crown; while Central European territories (hideously inflated in Map A – who can justify Spanish lands reaching to the Black Sea?!) had zero connection to Spain beyond the loose harmony of interests caused by a Spanish king also being a Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor. Albrecht 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that's quite true—the hereditary Habsburg lands in Austria were ruled from Madrid for a brief period (1519–21). But this is such a minor technicality that we can probably safely ignore it. —Kirill Lokshin 16:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's not true for another reason as well: the Netherlands were never made part of Spain; they were part of the same inheritance. See e.g. Oath of Abjuration: "Sometimes, the oath is interpreted as a act of secession from Spain, but this is strictly speaking incorrect. Legally, the oath deposed the provinces' current ruler, Philip of Habsburg — who, by dynastic coincidence, was also king of Spain." I believe this is correct. But it is (again) such a minor point that it can be ignored here. -- Eugene van der Pijll 17:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That's looking at the matter in a vacuum, though. Because of its date and POV, the Dutch declaration of independence in 1581 can't de jure recognize a connection to the Spanish Crown that wasn't yet evident at that time (Philip being alive); but that in retrospect we can verify had been established – Philip delegated authority to his Spanish successors (this is universally recognized by history – the Eighty Years' War was in common parlance fought against Spain, not against "a series of Governors appointed by Habsburg Princes"). That's about as close as you can get within the bounds of 16th century dynastic law to "part of Spain," so I don't find myself terribly inclined to quibble over legal technicalities when there's a world of difference between having the Netherlands on the map and having Poland and the Ukraine!

However, in light of these concerns, I could recolour the Netherlands pink owing to the brevity of actual Spanish control. Would that be a more satisfactory representation of the facts? Albrecht 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a minor point ;-) I think some more distinct shades might be useful here; it's a bit difficult to distinguish when the map is viewed at a small size.

You're right; I'll look into it. The colours are subject to change anyway when I start working on the "by date lost" system proposed earlier.

More interesting (to me, anyways) is Northern Italy. I assume that the two different-colored blobs near the coast are meant to be Milan and Genoa; but what is the longer patch to the left? I don't believe Savoy was ever Spanish; is it something else? —Kirill Lokshin 19:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That does look strange, actually. The idea was to have Genoa, Milan, and the Duchy of Parma, with a strip reaching north along the Swiss Confederation to the Franche-Comté, which I also believe has been shifted east somewhat. If anything, my unskilled hand, coupled with the haste with which I drew some parts up, is probably to blame for this. Count always on my willingness to revise (have I missed territories in Italy, by the way? Something gnaws at my thoughts...). Albrecht 19:51, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't think of anything else in Italy that would count as Spanish (Malta was, for a time, but that's not really Italy). As far as reasonably long-term posession goes, the map looks complete; I assume we're not going to count brief occupation as making a territory part of the Spanish empire, of course. —Kirill Lokshin 21:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not. The last thing I want is to invite comparisons with the British propagandists responsible for this Image:British Empire Anachronous 2.PNG (Austria part of the British Empire?!). In fact, I think Corsica and the Duchy of Athens are on their way out. I wanted to show continuity with the Aragonese Empire, but the article text does so already and it's not terribly relevant in any case. Albrecht 21:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather hairy question, that. The Netherlands were clearly ruled from Spain (and by the Spanish monarch); this may or may not make them part of the Spanish empire during the period in question. Contrast this to Austria-Hungary, which was not ruled from Spain after 1521 (or 1523). If we exclude non-Spanish portions, we would similarly need to remove Spain's Italian possessions.

In any case, the presence of the Netherlands is one point where the two maps agree; it may be incorrect, but it's not helpful in deciding between them ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 13:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Update: I've used a reputable source to draw the effective northern frontier of Spanish settlement in North America. I'm quite happy with the resulting modification, which should clear up some of the few remaining trouble spots on the map. Some details:

• I've chosen to keep the whole of the Louisiana colony solidly red even though it was only thinly settled, and mostly by colonists of French descent, because history tells us that the Spanish administration controlled it remarkably effectively at the local level – they even held Illinois from British attacks in the American Revolutionary War. If someone can provide an adequate guide on population distribution I'll be happy to render pink what ought to be pink. Spanish presence in the northwest was probably nonexistent, and certainly marginal at best.
• The Nootka colony around Vancouver Island has remained red while the island itself is now pink. This site gives a good account of Spanish military presence in the region in the 1790s.
• Although technically disputed territory by the later 18th century, the Pacific Coast has remained red because the Spanish were generally successful in enforcing monopoly until 1791 (although my view on this is not set in granite). All of the interior, from the northern limits of Alta California to the western reaches of Louisiana, is now pink.

I'll be pleased to address any remaining issues. Thanks to all for their concern & constructive criticism. Albrecht 01:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The anachronous map is very good, Albrecht. I believe the Spanish had a couple more trading posts along the North African coast though. As it is your map only shows Oran, right? But in the Penguin Atlas of African History, the 1540 map on pg. 75 shows three additional possessions, 1 in Tripolitania, 1 definitely in Tunisia and another either in Tunisia or Algeria. In addition this website: http://www.worldstatesmen.org/COLONIES.html#Spanish has a long index of Spain's colonial possessions (although it seems to have overlooked a few), but it does have Jerba in Tunisia as being intermitently controlled by the Spanish. Oddly enough when looking on the other colonial indices/indexes it would appear that the anachronous British Empire map wasn't so propaganda-like, since the index lists occupations and occupation zones. I have seen other websites which show or list the occupation zones like http://www.cit.gu.edu.au/~s285238/History.html (which I hope will eventually put up similar series for other empires- at present it only has the Roman and "British" Empires).

This map is inexcusable. Virtually the whole of North and South America coloured red when barely a single Spaniard set foot upon the vast majority of this land. These territories were not conquered. This would be like colouring in Africa for Uqba ibn Nafi who claimed the entire continent. Or colouring in Scotland for Idi Amin who proclaimed himself King of Scotland. Jooler 09:58, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Read the description, chief. Then read the discussion. Afterwards, you want to criticize the map? Fine: give me detailed examples of what needs to change, and why. Albrecht 14:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not really. Those examples are pretty extreme, but then again so is your criterion "setting foot upon the vast majority of this land". Using this logic, why is ALL of Alaska constantly coloured in the same colour as the United States? Do you really think that every last inch of soil in Alaska has been trod upon by some American or another? Or better yet, what of the Amazon rainforest? There are some places which are near impassable (if not totally inaccessible) and which has probably never been seen by human eyes (satellites and aerial photography not counting). So are we to then colour the Amazon rainforest as belonging to no government? The fact that virtually the whole of North and South America are coloured only indicates the area over which the Spanish were able to exert control (or to profer a fairly believable claim). Besides how can you say barely a single Spaniard set foot upon the vast majority of the Americas? How is it then that the majority of the inhabitants today speak Spanish? At some point some Spaniard must have reached these areas and then settled and produced generations of descendants who (until the 1820s) were all considered subjects of the Spanish crown (and thus Spaniards, unless they were slaves). So the map is not "inexcusable".

I was intending to refer to the Northern Continent when speaking of a Spaniard setting foot upon the land, I apologise for not making that clear. Spain was certainly not able to exert any form of control over the people or the territories in the heartlands of the North American continent known as New Spain. This vast bulk of this area was not surveyed until much later with Lewis and Clark et al. Jooler 23:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I know that's what you meant and I still stand by the examples of the Amazon and Alaska, especially the Amazon, since one cannot reasonably expect Brazil to assert control when some places can only be seen safely from the air. Plus, forms of control vary over time. How can even dare colour maps of Africa and the Amazon (and Alaska) from the 1820s on to the 1890s in the colours of the countries that claimed dominion over them when a vast majority of those areas had never been surveyed and (at the time) were almost, if not completely inaccessible (and aeroplanes hadn't been invented for most of that period, so you couldn't even fly over the area except by hot-air balloon). It also seems that you never read Albrecht's post about looking at the map and reading the discussion. Since you haven't read the entire discussion, just read the last 10 paragraphs from the previous discussion topic ("Map discussion") and you will see that the Spanish actually defended the area (including present-day Illinois) from the British. - Anon

P.S., Albrecht, what about my suggestions re: the other Spanish controlled towns/trading posts in North Africa (specifically Algeria, Tunisia and Tripolitania)?-Anon

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I'll look into those shortly; it should be a simple matter to add them to the map. Albrecht 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Most of those territories in Africa had been extensively surveyed by the time of African decolonisation (roughly 1960s). as for Alaska and the Amazon basin the waterways, hills and mountains are known. Citing the Battle of Saint Louis is misleading. Highlighting towns and settlements along the banks of the Mississippi/Missouri (a highly navigable waterway) and indicating an area of Spanish control which extends from the continental coasts is disingenuous. The land away from the banks would have been virtually unknown and occupied by hostile natives. No claim to this land by the natives could have been readily rebuffed by the Spanish at that time. Thus the coloured areas plainly do not represent Spain's ability to lay any justifiable (in terms of ability) claim to the land. Jooler 18:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You missed the point. I specifically referred to Africa and the Amazon from the 1820s to the 1890s. naturally most of Africa was surveyed by the 1960s since: (a) thats 70-140 years after the times I specified and (b) by the 1960s aeroplanes were common (there were already commercial jet airliners), the satellite age had begun and you had helicopters, automobiles/cars, more modern forms of amphibious transport and penicillin. Essentially thats like a whole other world. What I was trying to get from you is whether or not we should thus start colouring maps of the world from the 1820s to the 1890s with great blank spaces or with colours that only indicate territorial claim, since during that time period governments could never exert the kind of control over those areas like they can today (or in the 1960s) or in your terms : "the coloured areas on most maps (from beginning of time to 1900s) plainly cannot represent [put imperial power or goverment here]'s ability to lay any justifiable (in terms of ability) claim to the land". And then if we go back even further to the 1500s and 1600s those Spaniards were using horses and sailing ships (since steam engine driven ships weren't in use until nearly the end of the Spanish Empire on the American mainland. Besides when you say the vast bulk of the area was not surveyed until Lewis and Clark you do a disservice to the Explorers who worked for Spain (with areas explored) such as Francisco Vásquez de Coronado (Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas + found the Grand Canyon), Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo (explored the Californian coast up to 60 miles north of San Francisco), and Escalante and Dominguez (Utah), Hernando de Soto (Missouri) Not to mention the various explorers for France (eg. de la Salle) that explored the Louisiana territory. In fact I doubt that any of the present states in the region (except maybe Wyoming) you referred to had not been explored at least in part by some European explorer or another. Could it really be possible that "most" of the area (by which we would have to assume over 50%) had not been explored at some point in time from 1500 to 1800? Did Lewis and Clark make the first definitive map of the area? If so then why were the French and Spanish so lazy for nearly 300 years when in less than 70 years Lewis and Clark managed to to survey the area? Plus could it not be that Lewis and Clark were re-surveying some areas that had simply not been properly surveyed (catalogued, documented, whatever) for a good number of years? By the way it is not the claim of the natives to the land which would have to be rebuffed by Spain, it was vice-versa. If the Spanish really wanted to go into an area that they called their own, they could and if the local Amerindians resisted, then they would probably be enslaved and wiped out. So the natives can make all the claims they want, until Spanish guns, cannons, ships and horses arrived. So maybe you can do some more research on the pre-Lewis and Clark explorers (it's a shame wikipedia doesn't have an exploration of the Americas page as yet) and then come up with more specific regions that had never been explored and in which the local tribes paid no tribute to Spain and then notify Albrecht of these areas.

Jooler, am I to understand then that your complaint is limited to the interior of Louisiana? Because (by some marvelous coincidence) I've already written on the subject : "If someone can provide an adequate guide on population distribution I'll be happy to render pink what ought to be pink. Spanish presence in the northwest was probably nonexistent, and certainly marginal at best."

Of course, the question then arises: if an 1803 map of the United States includes all of Louisiana (which they all do), why shouldn't a 1794 map of the Spanish Empire? Or maybe this is all just counterproductive nitpicking?

As has been stated, your reasoning would have maps of Africa dated 1890, 1914, or even 1921 depict only claims to settled areas or lands that had been systematically surveyed and occupied by the colonial powers at that time. Perhaps you've noticed that this has never been the case? Worse yet, a 1870 map of the United States can't include a territory that the Union has purchased with the gold it physically possessed because the land hasn't yet been surveyed!? Tell me, when is Alaska allowed on the map? 1900? 1920? Such as system doesn't lend itself well to cartography – to say nothing of an encyclopaedia.

The French Empire map features a far more ambitious depiction of North American land claims than mine. Curiously, I can't find any of your drawn-out tirades and protests on that page. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough?

In brief: to make the map as accurate as possible, I've tried to distinguish between Spanish claims and Spanish settlement, whenever possible. In Louisiana, Spain inherited a well-established network of French forts, outposts, native contacts, and geographic knowledge – to say that Spain could only control the Mississippi and related waterways is to ignore 200 years of North American history (although it's certainly true that Spanish economic and administrative activity was largely concentrated to the south) The map's not perfect, but to call it "inexcusable" is, well, inexcusable, and a huge double-standard. Albrecht 21:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Drawn out tirades - Until now I had written barely a dozen lines on this subject. I find your tone objectionable and I find the French map equally objectionable. Those North American lands were occupied by the North American tribes and the land had to be conquered. The fact that the USA paid the French for the right to be able to conquer without fighting the French as well as the natives is of no consequence whatsoever. The French had no more right to sell the land than anyone else not in actual possession. Re:Francisco Vásquez de Coronado etc.. A few brief forays into previously unexplored territory 'does not a conquerer make'. Where are these Spanish and French surveys? Indeed had the Spanish set about the natives then yes they may very well have conquered then with cannon and musket, but the vast bulk of the territory they claimed was not conquered. At the end fo the day all I'm saying is that there should be a clear colour distinction between lands claimed and lands actually conquered and occupied. Jooler 22:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Let me apologize for my tone. I'm sure you understand that after all the headaches that that map gave me, I wasn't terribly inclined to respond with kisses and flowers to someone whose opening line read: "This map is inexcusable." By the way, take a look at that British Empire map at the top of the page, you'll laugh so hard you'll need medical attention!! —Albrecht 22:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the anachronous map for the British Empire on this page is as bad but no worse in my opinion, at least the map on the British Empire page (which is not the same) shows land that was actually occupied or conquered (for the most part). Those vast tracts of habbitable land in Canada and Africa were still under colonial rule dsuring the first few decades of the 20th century. Jooler 22:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

"......Re:Francisco Vásquez de Coronado etc.. A few brief forays into previously unexplored territory 'does not a conquerer make'. Where are these Spanish and French surveys?...etc." How nice of you to dismiss these explorers as "breif forays" as though what they did was nothing more than frolic in a field. So then does that make Lewis and Clark conquerers? And what does surveying have to do with conquest? As far as I know, surveying is just that: looking at the land and putting the observed information in some tangible (normally paper) form. Conquest on the other hand does not require that detailed descriptions of the land be put to paper. It just means somebody manages to uphold a claim (or is able to make a justifiable claim) to an area through strength of arms. And you say that "the vast bulk of the territory they claimed was not conquered"...but is it necessary for Spain to conquer every single square inch for it to be put on a map? That is asking a bit much. What the Spanish did was claim the area through discovery, Papal approval and the strength of their defences. If some other European power laid claim to one of these areas (which undoubtedly had been inhabited by Amerindians) then if the Spanish could not drive out those opposing Europeans, they essentially lost claim (and title) to the area. As I said before, the Spanish (and indeed all European powers in those days) did not think very much of the the Native Americans and they knew they could beat them, so why bother? Just to prove a point? Just so that many years later people writing in wikipedia can say "yes they conquered every last inch of soil"? Just because they could do something didn't mean they had to. Just look on the Americans who later bought the land. Sure they had to actually fight against some of the (Amer)Indian tribes, but can you name one instance in which the Native Americans beat back the Americans so badly that the US gave up claim to the area? In all cases the Americans eventually won (as they knew they would and just as the Spanish and French knew they would and could) due to superior arms. And since when did the Europeans and Americans care about their right to sell or own the land? I don't think they had any right either, but wikipedia is not a place for looking at things retrospectively. What's done is done and wikipedia (like any other encyclopaedia) just attempts to document it. Now instead of going around in circles, why not give us a demonstration of what you think the map should look like (in the discussion page of course). If you can more accurately portray Spanish control, the kudos to you, especially given the scale of the map. After all, how are you going to show control (claim versus occupation) in the Lesser Antilles, where the Caribs pretty much operated like those Native Americans in Louisiana (i.e. possessing the land)? -Anon

P.S. Perhaps I am missing something but wasn't the Lewis and Clark expedition only a 2 year "foray" from the old border to the Pacific? And did it not follow rivers for some of the journey? And looking at maps of the expedition I cannot see how their 2 year expedition was any different than Coronada's (in terms of limited area), except that the trail was longer. And how can it be that their survey established the sort of control/occupation you are referring to?-Anon

Straw man. I made no suggestion that Lewis and Clark meant the the USA has conquered the West, far from it. Jooler 11:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, well sorry, but I must have misinterpreted your statement " Spain was certainly not able to exert any form of control over the people or the territories in the heartlands of the North American continent known as New Spain. This vast bulk of this area was not surveyed until much later with Lewis and Clark et al. Jooler 23:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)". You see, you had talked about surveying first and then suddenly talked about how "A few brief forays into previously unexplored territory 'does not a conquerer make'". From that last statement it seemed as though you required the older Spanish and French explorers to also be conquerers. Again, sorry for any misunderstanding. However I still hope you can use Albrecht's map as a base map and draw the map you say would be more accurate.-Anon (or Strawman, I guess)

There are two senstences there each of which which state sparate facts. But the reference to Lewis and Clark is given as a starting point for further exporation hence the "et al". Jooler 17:13, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I already acknowledged that and apologized for misinterpreting them (see above). So what about those issues I raised and any plans to do a rough map yourself?

Jooler, you have some valid points but they're not reason enough to change all the european empire maps so just give it up, ok?

The Russian Empire was Equal if not larger than the Spanish by about 1700 http://www.bartleby.com/67/russia03.html. So I am changing this "Between the incorporation of the Portuguese empire in 1580 (lost in 1640) and the loss of its American colonies in the 19th century the Spanish Empire was the largest in the world" --Arthur Wellesley 6:00, 29 December 2005 (EST)

Who re-added it? I already have proven this to be false, and you can't have false information in an encyclopedia...--Arthur Wellesley 2:08, 1 January 2005 (EST)

While looking at the Russian map (for travel planning) it occured to me that the current Russian Federation is approx equal in area to Russian empire in the 18th cent - both lack central Asian "-stans"; yes it doesn't have Ukraine, part of Poland and Baltics, but it nearly makes up for that by the area east of the Amur river, and some of the Caucasus - which it didn't have then. So current area of Russia is 17.075 million km², which would be close to 18th cent emp. Spanish emp at its territorial peak in last decades of the 18th cent: 19.425 million km² according to To Rule the Earth... Even allowing for a bit of fudge its pretty clear cut, Mr Wellesly. Robert of Oz 18 Jan 06 (By the way, the partitions of Poland happened in 1772-93, so that's in excess of another half million km² less for Russia up to 1773)

Charles I of Spain succeeded in 1516 his grandfather Ferdinad II of Aragon to the throne of Spain. From his father Philip he inherited the Low Countries, the Franch-Comte and the Austrian territories. In 1519 the German bankers (Fugger, Welser) had him crowned as the Holy Roman Emperor, putting thus under the authority of the Kintg of Spain the whole of Germany until 1556. Why are the German and Austrian territories not coloured in any way in the map?

Because, unlike (say) Image:British Empire Anachronous 6.png, which apparently includes every piece of ground British soldiers ever set foot on, this map includes only Spanish dependencies. Habsburg Germany, Bohemia, etc., while dynastically aligned with the Spanish kingdoms, were never under any sort of meaningful Spanish influence, rule, or administration (unlike Portugal, for instance).

An illustration of the Habsburgs' European possessions is a valuable tool, but such a map (Image:Habsburg Map 1547.jpg) can be found further down in the article. Albrecht 23:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)