Talk:Spanish Empire

Map (yes, again again again again again [times 5]): this Time on de jure vs de facto terr.

The Mapuche were never part of the Spanish empire, they were only claimed.. see this map in the infobox for example. So why show the Spanish Empire like this even though it LOST against the people of southern Argentina and Chili, it didn’t just claim territories not really controlled, it LOST in warfare, and now Wikipedia is all “but it claims to control these territories”. I already pointed this out, but Wikipedians are more interested in debating wether poor Portugal was Spanish or not, and seemingly don't bother to care about (successful) indigenous resistance up until independence from Spain (as Chile and Argentina conquered the indigenous, not Spain). 2003:EE:6F1D:D83:D00E:8A51:A9C:A844 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The Mapuches fought for the king of Spain and defended Spain against its enemies. They submitted to the Spanish King so stop writing nonsense"La relación entre españoles y mapuches se reforzaron en 1803 con el “Parlamento de Negrete”. Con él se ratificaba el acuerdo de paz y concordia. Por parte del pueblo mapuche se ratificaba la defensa de la nación española frente a los ataques por parte de potencias extranjeras y el reconocimiento del rey de España"https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parlamento_de_Negrete_(1803) 194.230.146.23 (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

To repeat, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Please cite a reliable source for that claim. - Donald Albury 00:01, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

That was very very very de jure though. Read a history of Chile and you will see that it was after independence that the southern territories were conquered and settled. Otherwise you might was well show all of the americas as Portuguese and Spanish because of the one treaty both powers made with the pope. 2A01:E0A:A84:5C70:403D:4EBF:CD07:A57E (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

The Mapuche mostly governed themselves until independent Chile invaded their territory, they often strategically switched between recognising the king of Spain and fighting his influence, but, in the end, they remained independent/autonomous up to the end of Spanish colonial hegemony in the Americas. ~2026-36637-7 (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

2003:EE:6F1D:D83:D00E:8A51:A9C:A844, ~2026-36637-7, User:Donald Albury. In the debate below, we were discussing to replace the current map with this anachronous one. Looking at it, it seems to be using more precise borders in the Americas (though it may have mistakes elsewhere).

The anachronous map in question, showing also the European territories in pink, African colonies in green, and the Portuguese territories of the Iberian Union in blue.

I say this out of a quick comparison with this one used in Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/place/Latin-America/Spanish-America-in-the-age-of-the-Bourbons. I thought it would be useful to mention it to you.Barjimoa (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

@Barjimoa: That seems great! Except for the territories associated with the Spanish-Portuguese Crown, which weren't Spain per se, otherwise the German Holy Roman Empire could also be included in the domains of "Spain" (or, rather, the Spanish Habsburg dynasty). It does however make clear the back-and-forth in regards to "Araucania" (Mapuche territory), and, most importantly, it does not (differently form the current map) show southern Chile and Argentina as part of the Spanish Empire, which fixes the huge inaccuracy of the currently used map which shouldn't be tolerated. Beyond this, however, it still shows "Mosquito nation" as part of Spanish rule, and there are certainly quite a few areas in Central America, Colombia and Venezuela where true Spanish rule was ephemeral at best (Guna territory, in Panama, or large parts of the Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, in Colombia). ~2026-37626-7 (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2026 (UTC)

Missing page numbers

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Resolved in Special:Diff/1329678963 and Special:Diff/1329699973. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

---

@Inherli could you please provide page numbers or other location identifiers for this edit per policy and guidelines? fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a page number, it verifies the second part of the edit, however the first part appears to fail verification. Is there a different page number you could provide? If needed you can utilize the {{sfn}} template.​ fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

@Inherli it appears you mistakenly removed a tag, the provided source fails verification since it does not mention disease, supply train interceptions, or burned towns. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 14:34, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

National Athem and Motto

Hi, I want to say that the nationaal athem doesnt make sense talkin about the 15th century as the idea of "nation" didnt exist until the 19th. SO, it doesnt makes sense to put th "national athem". In any case, the one that is in the wikipedia is the actual one. Therfore, it would be more corect to put "El Himno de los Tercios Españoles". Finaly the motto i dont know if is the corect one. There is any doubt about that is like the actual one. However yesterday i saw a document "Desamortizaciones de Madoz" which had a different motto "Non Plus Ultra"https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diccionario_geogr%C3%A1fico-estad%C3%ADstico-hist%C3%B3rico_de_Espa%C3%B1a_y_sus_posesiones_de_Ultramar ~2026-17650-29 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Spanish empire

The historians agreed that the "spanish empire" ended with the peace of paris, when spain loosed teh spanish-american war aginst usa.https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Par%C3%ADs_(1898) ~2026-17650-29 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

No Wikipedia nor any other user-generated source is an acceptable source. Donald Albury 15:57, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Map (again x 6)

Ok. Like, what are you all even on about? I read through (almost) all of this stuff and apparently there was a so called “anachronistic” map which some Portuguese people didn’t like, but Spanish nationalists really liked that one. Who cares? The current one is so obviously wrong on so many fronts it’s just ridiculous. Why are there visibly some people here who want to keep it? Just search for a new one, don’t give nationalists a word, and just impose that one. Where’s even the issue? This is completely ridiculous. ~2026-28389-22 (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

Well, I started an RfC a while ago but then someone false reported me and the RfC got stalled and cancelled. You could maybe create an account an start an RfC, it is an important topic. I'm sure people will be willing to come to an agreement on a better map. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 13:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

The best way would probably be to find a map from some external source that we could cite, and reproducing the boundaries in our map. For what it's worth, the maps I've seen in atlases of world history don't include Patagonia or most of Louisiana (New Spain) (they do include part of it, mainly areas close to the Mississippi River) in the territory assigned to the Spanish Empire, unlike the current map. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure how accurate those atlases are then. Many atlases I've seen include Patagonia and Louisiana. If you include all legal boundaries of the British Empire, the same should apply to the Spanish Empire. Patagonia was recognized as part of the Spanish Empire, even if Spanish settlers and colonizers didn't inhabit most of it. The same way Canada and Australia were recognized as being part of the British Empire, even if British settlers and colonizers didn't inhabit most of it. The same standard was also applied to the Portuguese and French Empire articles. Not to mention they have all diachronic maps.

Actual map of the Spanish Empire at its greatest extent, in 1783/1790

Diachronic map of the Spanish Empire

Bubba6t3411 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

That would only result in people thinking im weird for reading through Wikipedia talk pages (because I do do that when I’m bored) and accuse me of being already involved. I don’t want that. I quite literally don’t have time for that… but what’s funny is that half of this talk page’s archives and current version are filled with a debate that has 0 real-life counterpart, it’s not some kind of political movement or whatever, it’s just a map… why can’t this be done way faster? I mean, clearly people are trying, maybe you could find some kind of academic article in a peer-reviewed journal in the maximum boundaries of the Spanish empire, taking into account theoretic and effective control, and then request a person knowledgable in this type of thing to create a map (isn’t there a page for that?)? It’s just frustrating that the entire talk page’s discussion here, instead of focusing on which New World conquests to mention and which ones not to, or economic details, no, the majority of this talk page is dedicated to the map in the infobox. ~2026-28671-67 (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

No one in real life would know your username on Wikipedia unless you tell or show them. I also find it frustrating how other users are trying as hard as possible to keep the infobox map in an inferior state. Some went as far as to false report me and stall the RfC, though that shouldn't discourage anyone from starting a new one (I don't enough time to engage in a new RfC, though I might start one some day when I have the time, if no one else does).

We already have pretty accurate maps to the right which I've attached. Someone could maybe edit those and remove some labels to make it cleaner? Bubba6t3411 (talk) 13:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I've looked at a few more maps from atlases. The clear majority do not include Patagonia. The ones I looked at where roughly evenly split on including the entirety of Louisiana (New Spain) or only part of it (a small minority indicating more remote parts as "frontier" territory distinct from settled areas). The Territorio de Nutca  was mostly excluded, and in a small minority of cases marked as disputed territory. Based on this rather cursory investigation, my impression is that including Patagonia or the Nootka territory would not be reflective of the sources. Of course, it would probably better to find as authoritative a map source as possible (is there consensus among academics about how to do it?). TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

English sources will do that to Spanish maps and Spanish sources will do the same to English maps. I think the best approach is to base the map off actual legal boundaries, just as it was done for maps of the British, Portuguese and French empires. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 17:19, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree. The concept of "actual legal boundaries" doesn't really apply neatly to areas that are inhabited by people who are not in any meaningful sense under the jurisdiction of the supposed legal authority. It's imposing a modern, and Eurocentric, concept where it doesn't really apply. The same thing could be said for a lot of historical empires. TompaDompa (talk) 17:28, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Then practically all of the maps on Wikipedia are Eurocentric. To be fair large parts of the world were, for the vast majority of modern history, owned by Europe. Being the leading powers does often come with the benefit of being the ones who get to decide what the world map looks like. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

There has to be some kind of leading academic that decided to do research on this subject, maybe for an article in a peer reviewed journal or something. Legal boundaries for Spain would include many parts of the Americas that were never really under Spanish control, to a ridiculous point (more so than British or French territories in the 19th century). ~2026-28826-15 (talk) 18:50, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

In terms of area, there is: Rein Taagepera, author of the source cited for the area in the WP:LEAD and infobox. I don't know if there's a cartographic equivalent. TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Spanish sources state the land area being almost double that of what Taagapera states. Over 24 million km^2 according to some sources on the Spanish Empire. What's funny is Taagapera applies a different standard for the British Empire than he does for the Spanish, so the actual land area he calculated for the Spanish Empire is a lot lower than it actually is. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 13:47, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The insinuation that those sources are in any way comparable in quality to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and indeed the foremost such source, is quite silly. Likewise the notion that Taagepera is applying a double standard favouring the British Empire (you know Taagepera is Estonian, right?). Anyway, this is getting rather off-topic. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The insinuation that those sources are in any way comparable in quality to a peer-reviewed scientific article specifically about the territorial extents of historical polities, and indeed the foremost such source, is quite silly.

This is what I mean. The anglosphere (it seems like that might include you) always tries to belittle anything that isn't from said sphere. You immediately assume that the Spanish source isn't comparable.

Frigdiano Álvaro Durántez Prados (2018) Iberofonía y Paniberismo: definición y articulación del mundo ibérico. He applies the same standard for the Spanish Empire as the English do for theirs. If the British include all of Canada and Australia (vast territories that have little English presence outside of the coastline and certain urban areas), he argues the same applies to the Spanish Empire with its American colonies.

The book is peer reviewed by the best university in Madrid, not to mention the author himself has a doctorate and a multitude of prizes. This source passes all checks for reliability.

Quite silly isn't it to assume that the Spanish source is incomparable?

Likewise the notion that Taagepera is applying a double standard favouring the British Empire (you know Taagepera is Estonian, right?)

An Estonian who spent all of his higher education years in the US. Anyway, to suggest that someone belonging to a specific ethnicity might be incapable of being biased is too shallow of an assessment. The fact is that Taagepera does not apply the same rules for the Spanish Empire as he does for the British. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

I'll admit that I have been holding out on you: when you described it as a Spanish source that gave the area as 24 million km², I knew it was going to be Iberofonía y Paniberismo, hence my dismissing it out of hand—or rather not out of hand: it has been discussed in a fair amount of detail before, on this page and elsewhere. The figure has been rejected for good reasons, including that it's a brief mention without any signs of scholarly rigour on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities in Iberofonía y Paniberismo, a source on a completely different topic—failing WP:RSCONTEXT. It's also not for the Spanish Empire but for the Iberian Union (under the most generous attribution of territory to polities imaginable). It's a WP:FRINGE position, as Cinderella157 and I explained to the WP:POV-pushing WP:Sockpuppeteer repeatedly back in 2023.

You're the one who said English sources will do that to Spanish maps and Spanish sources will do the same to English maps. I'm pointing out that it doesn't apply here. You may think that Taagepera does not apply the same rules for the Spanish Empire as he does for the British, but you are simply wrong there. You can look at Taagepera's methodology and sources if you are curious as to how he arrived at the figures he did, but the same method was applied to both entries (and others besides these two, of course). TompaDompa (talk) 23:14, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

It's also not for the Spanish Empire but for the Iberian Union.

It is for the Spanish Empire. I stated "over 24 million km^2," which is precisely what Durántez Prados attributes to the Spanish Empire in 1783, not the Iberian Union in 1640, p. 109.

Iberofonía y Paniberismo, a source on a completely different topic—failing WP:RSCONTEXT.

The Spanish Empire falls neatly within that category, it's not a 'completely different topic,' it meets the context. The book explores a wide variety of empires too, not just the Iberian ones. Not to mention, it provides maps, which Taagepera does not, so most of us don't even have any idea what Taagepera is envisioning.

He likely excluded Patagonia and large areas of NA, which is clearly controversial and highly debated upon. Durántez Prados applies the same logic used for the British Empire, and considers the aforementioned territories as part of the Spanish Empire.

It's a WP:FRINGE position

Considering that these are the two main sources that directly state the total land area (in fact, they might be the only two sources, as we don't really have any other), it wouldn't be fringe that one side says a different thing than the other. There is no 'mainstream' here as mentioned in WP:FRINGE.

P.S. If you have a bit of time and curiosity, just adding the most of the land area of the ex-Spanish colonies during its maximum extent already gives you a total land area of over 20 km^2 (you can maybe use thetruesize for that, cool site), and that is even considering the reduced modern-day frontiers in comparison to the historical ones. Taagepera's 13.7 km^2 is very clearly vastly inaccurate, and omits large territories of the Spanish Empire. The figure is simply way off.

Anyhow, I'm willing to come to a compromise. Perhaps we could use a map that highlights the 'disputed' areas (like Patagonia and Nootka) in a different shade. I think this map for example is great, it's superior in every way to the currently inaccurate (and lower quality) map. Let me know your thoughts.

Proposed diachronic map. Good coloring to distinguish the periods, accurate borders, etc. Vastly superior to the current inaccurate and lower quality map.

Bubba6t3411 (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

You can read previous discussion so we don't have to repeat all the same points over again, but Iberofonía y Paniberismo being a source on the Spanish Empire still makes it a source on an entirely different topic than the territorial extents of historical polities, and to the extent that there exists consensus among sources, it agrees with Taagepera's figures. What Iberofonía y Paniberismo says is Desde una perspectiva puntual y sincrónica, el Imperio de la Monarquía Católica o Hispánica entre 1580 y 1640-68, con la incorporación de Portugal y sus territorios ultramarinos, alcanzaría en torno a los 24 millones de km² de soberanía formal efectiva en todos los continentes, sin contar con otros territorios de soberanía formal nominal o conceptual. This is a ludicrously fringe position. No serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities attributes effective control of 24 million km2 to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union, and no serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities uses any other measure than land area under effective control. It then says some stuff about 1783 without putting an explicit figure on it.

Your repeated assertion that different criteria/standards/logic are being applied for the Spanish and British Empires in Taagepera's research is wrong. You can look at Taagepera's research yourself, and if you're really curious you can track down the map sources used. It doesn't take a particularly close reading of either to see that control came gradually over time. It is therefore not surprising that the area controlled by an empire in the 1900s would more closely resemble the area they claimed (and modern-day borders) than for others in the 1700s or 1800s.

I stand by what I said before: the best way forward is to find the best maps from WP:Reliable sources we can. Thus far, my assessment of the sources I have found is that Patagonia and Nootka should be excluded, and that Louisiana is questionable. I don't think any of your proposed replacement maps are satisfactory. TompaDompa (talk) 13:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Don't see why you keep trying to falsely label his book. It is fully within context and a reliable source WP:RS.

This is a ludicrously fringe position. No serious scholar on the topic of the territorial extents of historical polities attributes effective control of 24 million km2 to the Spanish Empire during the time of the Iberian Union.

No. It's correctly calculated. Just a couple minutes of reading his book would give you the context as to why he states 24 million (including claims). It's this map:

The maps are also quite literally included in his book, which Taagepera lacks.

It then says some stuff about 1783 without putting an explicit figure on it.

No, the figure he provides is > 24 million km^2.

I am correct when I say that Taagepera's calculation is far too low, as he omits millions of km^2 that were just as effectively controlled by Spain as the British did Australia and Canada. Patagonia was part of the Spanish Empire. The coastline had effective Spanish authority, no matter how much you will try to paint it as "but what about the vast dry uninhabited lands." Wait a minute, that sounds familiar... Oh, that's also British Australia. Switch the word "dry" to "cold," and you've perfectly described British Canada too. Conveniently for the Brits, these uninhabited territories are massive in land area. The facts are that Durántez Prados correctly applies the same standards for all empires, Taagepera does not. Simple as it is.

Then there's Nootka which, despite being disputed, guess what? The Spanish were the only ones who set up a prominent base there (Nootka Island). The Spanish claim to Nootka was infinitely more defensible than the British claim. Anyhow, you can keep calling it disputed but I'll leave that info there. Bubba6t3411 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Taagepera doesn't lack maps, you just didn't follow the references. Here is the one he used. As you can see, neither Nootka nor Patagonia are included. You'll also note that the majority of Canada and Australia are not assigned to the British Empire at that point in time (1700–1815). This is something of a recurring theme if you look at a bunch of different atlases: the territories attributed to colonial powers in the 1700s (and 1800s) are relatively conservative when compared to the territories attributed to colonial powers in the 1900s. It's not difficult to imagine why. This stands in rather stark contrast to Prados's diachronic map on p. 139 which is remarkably charitable in what it considers being part of the Spanish Empire (counting the Aleutian Islands as part of the Spanish Empire is not exactly a position held by the majority of sources, to put it mildly), and of course doesn't represent any particular point in time. Prados's map of the Iberian Union on p. 138 is likewise very charitable in what it counts compared to e.g. this map, this map, or this map, all from atlases of world history (German-language ones). Prados is not exactly aligned with the cartographic mainstream.

Then there's Nootka which, despite being disputed, guess what? The Spanish were the only ones who set up a prominent base there (Nootka Island). The Spanish claim to Nootka was infinitely more defensible than the British claim. Perhaps, but you are of course neglecting the possibility of not assigning the territory to either. One might for instance consider the indigenous peoples of the Pacific Northwest Coast.

Anyway, I don't think we're going to get any further with this unless and until you start providing maps we can cite. TompaDompa (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

What I meant was people on Wikipedia reporting me like they did you. I don't have the time to respond to that type of thing. I don't even know how to start an RFC. But good luck… ~2026-28826-15 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Lol LocalF15 (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2026 (UTC)