File talk:Diachronic map of the Spanish Empire.svg

 

Why is Patagonia shaded?

That's a good question, and I've questioned that to myself many times. Let me explain this Patagonia topic. I myself have doubted many times but after studying many historical maps, I think it should be fully included into Spanish possesions as Louisiana is included in 1810 US maps, for instance:

-What is a fully occupied or effectively occupied territory? I consider that question really tricky to answer properly. For instance, are Arctic Canadian Islands fully occupied by Canada nowadays? What about the Australian Outback? And the Amazon basin in Brazil? When is a territory considered effectively occupied? There are territories even in our modern nation states which aren't still fully charted, with tribes discovered still today, and they're not occupied or settled or explored. Maybe a settlement with buildings means it is fully occupied. But, how much territory do you add in the surroundings? 1km, 10 km, 100 km? 1000km? How do you decide that? Is a road or a pathway built by a power something that qualifies that territory as "effectively occupied"? What about the surroundings of that road? What kind of territory do we need to qualify some land as fully occupied territory? A farm, a desert... is the Algerian desert fully occupied?

Those questions are horribly difficult to answer. The thing is, we do have maps that do not follow the rule of "shaded area=fully occupy land". And there are plenty of them. For instance, let's see this map of 1788 Australia, when there was only one outpost built in Sydney. But we had nearly half of Australia shaded as part of the British Empire. How is that? We only had a couple of hundred squared meters fully occupied in Sydney!

Take as well into consideration all those maps of early USA like this one I add here. What's up with all that Missisippi basin? Was that fully occupied? Completely not. There were still hundreds of hostile Native American tribes which were not aware of these borders and they fought until their extermination to defend their land in the following decades. The last wars were won in late 1890. Does that mean that the USA maps shouldn't shade the Mississippi basin until 1900? It's shaded as a full American territory (not into statehood, but fully American anyway).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6f/Australian_states_history_01.gif

I think the "fully occupied territory" criterion is not only difficult to answer, but also not followed in important historical maps like those. So, what's the solution? There is not a complete solution, but I give you my opinion. My thought is that territories should be shaded as fully integrated in the empire or nation if they were "charted, claimed and recognized by main powers, specially those capable of projecting force in the area" (in short: recognized). Although this triad of criteria is not entirely clear either, it may be better than the fully occupied criterion. And that triad of criteria is followed in 1810 USA maps or 1788 Australia maps. So Patagonia was charted, claimed by Spain and recognized by Portugal, the other South American power, in the late 1700s:

1. "There was native resistance". Yes there was. But there were native resistance in the Louisiana territory in the USA, right? Why then it is shaded as integral part of the USA, and Patagonia not part of the Spanish Empire?

2. "There was not settled". That's not right. It was also moderately settled (Carmen de Patagones, San José, Colonia Floridablanca, Puerto Deseado in the coast). Those are more settlements, in number, than Sydney in the 1788 which justifies that half of Australia shaded map.

3. "It was not recognized by foreign powers". That's also contested. Portugal did recognize Spanish rule west of the Treaty of Madrid of 1750 and the Treaty of San Ildefonso in the 1770s line dividing South America between them. Also, Spain didn't recognized the British rule in early 1788 Australia. But those maps of half of Australia shaded in 1788 are still there. The thing is, Spain couldn't seize Australia from the British (Australia was part of the Castilian hemisphere according to Tordesillas treaty, so they claimed it as late as 1790), and in the same way, foreign powers depriving Patagonia in their maps weren't also capable of seizing it. Yes there are some old maps with Patagonia coloured in another color different from the Pampa region. But there are also old maps that show Patagonia included in the Spanish sphere. How many old maps do we need to colour something in a way or another?

Maybe it is better to reserve the lighter shade to "claimed but effectively disputed areas" (in short: disputed, instead of simply "claimed lands") with major intrusions and constant operations of foreign powers, like the Portuguese in the Amazon basin in the 1730s (claimed by Spain), which were founding cities and raiding here and there, or the Nootka territory where British and Russian vessels were thriving. But the Patagonian lands were just remote, native governed lands, with no large interventions of foreign major powers, just as the 1810 American Louisiana or the 1788 Australian Outback...

As I said, these are just my opinions after heavy research, but I have had different opinions myself, as you could see it in the earlier versions of the SVG map. Thank you all! Nagihuin (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The map is completely wrong

I'm here to inform of the issues that we have debated in a number of talk pages. Altough it's a nice graphic, it turns out that the map is massively wrong. Namely, it shows the empire significantly bigger than it was (and it was already big)

HRE (Germany, Bohemia and Imperial Italy), Austria, and Hungary were not part of the Spanish Empire. No historian has ever claimed that they were part of the Spanish Empire. Charles V ruled them separately from his spanish possessions. That's a big mistake. It would be like saying that Spain was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Another issue is that, according to all the sources, the Spanish road and its territories streched from the Spanish Duchy of Milan to the Spanish Netherlands, through a number of sparse territories held by Spain at the border with France. It didn't go that far in Italy nor that deep into Germany. We should stick to the sources and, in general, the American, African, and European territories all look exaggerated in their borders. Compare them with the correct maps of Spanish empire that we have worked out on wikipedia. You have big blatant mistakes but also a huge number of small mistakes. Many of the cities highlighted were never Spanish. If other users inform me of other mistakes i will report it here. It looks like there are many.

Barjimoa (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This is a serious accusation and I can't agree with that. What you see in the map (hemispheric claims, American, Asian and African proposed claims and other features) is what is shown in different sources: the 1990s "Grande Encyclopédie Larousse" maps included in the "Empire colonial espagnol" and "Empire colonial portugais" entries, the "Pequeño Larousse" 1997 dictionary and the historical map for the Americas entry, the cartography included in 2018 "Iberofonía y paniberismo", by Frigdiano Álvaro Durántez Prados, also in 1941 "Reivindicaciones de España" by Areilza and others. Remember this map includes all claims and claim proposals, because we have other maps showing strictly all effective presence areas (an idea which comes from a biased Protestant point of view which negates the Papal authority -so the idea of hemispheric claims is rejected and so on-), and we don't have a map which shows all claims and claim proposals, so I don't see any problem to have one, just like there are modern maps with Antarctica claims. The "Spanish Empire" is just a historiographical term. So it can be applied to the territories of the Spanish Republic in the 1930s, or to all the former political linked structures in the past. In the map, I explicitally added the note "Se muestra también el Imperio de Carlos V" to indicate that it was something related and not exactly the same as a "Spanish conglomerate" of later eras; and so that in this period, that political conglomerate was "too international-ish". But there are scholars that have profoundly related the Empire of Charles to the universal idea waved by Spain since its very beginning as a bunch of Christian different political entities, as Gustavo Bueno (see: "España frente a Europa" and other texts) or Elvira Roca ("Imperiofobia y leyenda negra"), also Marcelo Gullo ("La insubordinación fundante", Germany and Italy were fragmented and thus politically manipulated from the unified monarchy of Spain), and they have signaled that there were previous Spanish kings that tried to obtain the HRE crown, like Alfonso X of Castile, so it was embedded in the Catholic universal program that Spanish waved back in time. The Spanish Empire in Europe was a result of the dynastic policies of Fernando el Católico, which tried to apply a containment ring around France (former enemy of Aragon, his kingdom, since the Battle of Muret and others), and that, as a result, originated the political conglomerate which was put into the hands of Charles. So the Empire of Charles without the actions of Fernando el Católico can't be understood. Charles also chose Spain in his final days and put the "lion's share" of the Empire into the Spanish branch. Both Spanish and Austrian branches respective empires fought together for more than a hundred years, so it was more like the Eastern and Western Roman empires than two completely separate entities. Finally, I don't see any problem with the Spanish Road lines. See https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:El_Camino_Espa%C3%B1ol.PNG and its sources. You say there are cities that were never Spanish, which ones? I don't agree with that.

Nagihuin (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nagihuin, I'm not accusing you. But you have unfortunately made huge mistakes, probably from misunderstanging wiki articles or because of original reaserch. I'm reporting points made at File Talk :Diachronic map of the Spanish Empire.svg and Talk: Spanish Empire, (on wiki). The fact that Charles also inherited Spain doesn't make Germany, Hungary, Bohemia, Austria etc. part of the Spanish empire as the map and file name suggests. They were all Habsburg, but not all Spanish. So that's inaccurate. And your reasoning is not sufficient because names of files should be accurate. This is named "Complete Spanish empire" not "all Habsburg tertitories" or "Spanish empire + Empire of Charles V". See Commons:File naming.

Rgarding the Spanish road...the source cited on the article say that it was about 1000km from Milan to Flanders. You doubled it and had it starting in Naples. Naples was under Spanish rule, but it was not part of the Spanish Road. You created confusions between two different concepts.

When it comes to cities, can you provide me a source (for example) saying that Assab in Eritrea (your latest addition) was Spanish for example? Etc. etc. We could stay here for hours.

The Spanish Empire was already big enough, it's pointless to add non-Spanish stuff to make it bigger.

P.S. Don't remove the innacurate tag, because it's linked to the talk page and allows us to see if someone can correct this file without proposing to mass delete all the files connected to it.Barjimoa (talk) 14:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the Spanish Road thing, you are misreading the map. The map includes dotted lines showing military routes ("Main military and commercial routes"). It does not mean that the Spanish Road starts in Naples. It just indicates that there was a military route operating there. The Spanish Road label is in the northern part of that line. Assab in Eritrea was a cession to Spain from Italy accorded in the 1887 Italian-Spanish treaty that was superseded and forgotten with the pass of time, as explained in "Reivindicaciones de España" by Areilza, and included in a map on that book (it also includes more Red Sea bays, but I chose only Assab). Spanish authorities were interested in that area because it was right in the middle of the Suez route from Spain to Philippines. If something is forgotten or buried in the historiographical storm of data, it does not mean it can't be shown. The very proposal of an Encyclopedia is to show information and not keep it buried. If the name of the file is the problem, I will just re-upload it with other name including the Habsburg reference in the very title. Of course I can correct all the objections, but only if they're given in a constructive manner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and not waving a "completely wrong" accusation. I've spent literally months of my life researching different sources for this map. Nagihuin (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally. I'm sorry that you have spent months to do this, but evidentely you ended up doing an incorrect "Original research" and the result is that now we have factual errors on a page about the Spanish empire showing Germany and Hungary etc etc. Also, just a quick research on google books say that the 1887 Italo-Spanish treaty promised Spain a naval base in the Assab bay. That doesn't make Assab a Spanish territory. If that is the kind of criteria you used for the whole page, we are in deep trouble with this. Also how was that military route called? That's a very specific claim you are making, so I want t know if it's based on a correct understanding of the sources you have read. Barjimoa (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not original research. That's a serious and incorrect accusation. I'm giving the sources. The original research would be manipulating the map to adjust it to our personal preferences -as many maps not counting and showing the hemispheric claims do, when it was something Spanish authorities waved even in the 1790s-, but let's take that aside for now. Again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith If all the problem is removing the yellow shade for the Charles empire for this specific file -though I can re-upload it renaming the file including the Habsburg reference- it can be done in two clicks. If "Assab" as a label can be better, it can be amended through a re-texting like "Assab bay station" or "Italian Assab cession" label, it just doesn't fit the Areilza map I am citing. Again just two clicks. I'm not using a general "kind of criteria" anyway, you're the one exaggerating and pretending to overthrow all the work which is embedded in this map just (you wrote: "completely wrong") because of you're personally not comfortable with it for whatever reasons. I'm not the one saying that there was a military route between Naples and Milan. The source cited in the Spanish Road map is, and many others. It wouldn't be difficult to find even more sources given the fact Spanish troops roamed Italy for hundreds of years. But again, military routes didn't have to be named to be military routes. And again, if all the problem is removing a dotted line between Naples and Milan, which would be a historiographical burial due to your personal interpretation, it can also be done in two clicks. Nagihuin (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Nagihuin, If you remove the yellow part, and remove those dots between Naples and Milan, and change it to Assab bay station...then the Inaccuracy tag should be removed because that is the mistakes that have been pointed out to me or that I have noticed. As I said i have nothing personal against your map. You have already removed the inaccuracy tag yourself, if you make these changes i'm not going to reintroduce it since corrections would have been made. Barjimoa (talk) 15:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

I can provide this source for the land route Naples to Milan (I think naming it as "land route" would be duplicating the info, due to the information given in the legend: dotted lines mean there is a route there, and it is a land route because it is drawn over land) involving military operations, that's also the reason the "States of the Presidios" were put into Spanish hands. https://books.google.es/books?id=oNQWAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=%22naples+to+milan%22+route+spanish+empire&source=bl&ots=vV0JiZ-h6H&sig=ACfU3U3_6cGoAVFXDMdRzLzATXpF-geStQ&hl=es&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiGx-am8PvmAhWF2eAKHckmB-QQ6AEwAXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22naples%20to%20milan%22%20route%20spanish%20empire&f=false Regarding to the Charles empire, I'll just reupload the file with the name you suggested "Spanish empire + Empire of Charles V" and keep this without the yellow shade. Nagihuin (talk) The Assab correction is easy to do. I'll do all this now. 15:42, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Northern Netherlands

The Northern Netherlands gained independence from Spain at the 1648 Peace of Münster, not at the 1713 Peace of Utrecht. You may want to change that. Markussep (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

That's already included in the map. The -1581 text in the 1556-1581/1714 label represents the end of the timespan of part of the Spanish Netherlands (from a Dutch perspective, instead of 1648 which would be from a Spanish perspective). Nagihuin (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

“Possesions of Charles V transferred to the Austrian branch of the Habsburgs (1556)”

Map of the HRE in the year 1648. The territories of the Austrian Habsburgs (darker goldish brown tone) are essentially the same as they were in the mid-16th century (cf. this map); one exception is Lusatia which became Saxon in 1635.

The yellow area within the Holy Roman Empire (HRE) is too large. The Austrian Habsburgs, though in possession of the emperorship, did not have effective power/control throughout the entire HRE. The HRE emperorship was merely a representative office. So the yellow area should be restricted to the actual territories of the Austrian Habsburgs, which in the 16th century mainly comprised Austrian territories (except Salzburg) as well as South Tyrol and Trentino, Slovenia, Bohemia & Moravia, Silesia, Lusatia and – outside of the HRE – parts of Croatia, Hungary and Slovakia (see adjoining map). Almost all HRE territories located in what is today the Federal Republic of Germany were never under the control of the Habsburgs (neither the Spanish nor the Austrian). --Gretarsson (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC); subsequently modified 08:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, the area was not Spanish empire to begin with: no historian has ever argued that Germany, Austria, Hungary etc were part of the Spanish empire. In 1556, Charles V didn't divide the Spanish empire. He divided the House of Habsburg and its possessions, aka the Habsburg empire. Which included the Spanish empire, given to Philip. But also included the HRE (given to Ferdinand except some territories such as Netherlands). The Spanish road is also wrong and other borders top. This map is factually incorrect and, given that we have discussed this many many many times (it's getting boring for me and others to follow and correct this) and concluded that the empire of Charles V was not solely Spanish, I think I will put in a correct map instead. Perhaps we need to simply delete this page actually because we already have correct maps of the spanish empire. Barjimoa (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

My position in

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Imperio_Espa%C3%B1ol_Completo.svg Nagihuin (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

User:JuTa, see here. The creator already repaired the file and corrected the mistakes with the image you reverted. The unrepaired image has been put under File: Spanish Empire and Empire of Charles V.svg and I think that it can survive there for file name accuracy without risking deletion. Barjimoa (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Assab/Aseb

Please add 1887-1890, the year when whole Assab area got included in the Italian colony of Eritrea. Best regards. --Roxanna (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)