User talk:Trasamundo

plazas de SM el rey de españa que junto a sus potentados llego a tener en los estados alemanes.

Buenos días, las posesiones del mapa sobre el imperio español en europa que usted a coloreado, me parecen cuanto menos discutibles. Así que me planteo ayudarle, desde un puto de vista objetivo. Faltan todos los territorios españoles en alemania y también remodelar las fronteras de los estados antiguos españoles de flandes, estos no tenían ni mucho menos las fronteras de los actuales países bajos, si bien la guerra de los ochenta años ayudaron a crearlas. Le ayudaré con ambas tareas, sobre la de flandes existe un libro titulado:La pacificación de Flandes. Spínola y las campañas de Frisia (1604-1609) de Eduardo de Mesa Gallego, que el autor escribió junto a otros autores belgas y alemanes.. para las fronteras ver España y sus tratados internacionales: 1516-17000, p.265. describiendo presencia española en flandes, lejos de las actuales fronteras que se describen en su bonito mapa, la verdad, le ha quedado bien.

Sobre los territorios españoles en alemania (sin contar los estados de flandes):

Primero decir ¿donde está el palatinado?, según Geoffrey Parker en su The army of Flanders and the Spanish Road viene a decir en la p. 45 que el gobierno del palatinado: Until 1618 [...] molested the passage of any pro-Spanish troops in the Rhineland.[...] The alacrity with which it did so in 1620 reflected the half-century of provocations suffered by Spain and its desire to use the Rhineland as a military corridor. It did so until 1631 when Gustavus Adolphus at Breitenfeld[...]closed the Rhineland to all troops in Habsburg service. ¿Donde están todas las fortalezas / territorios que españa tuvo en los estados alemanes? ¿y el sistema de fuertes español conocido como la Fossa Eugeniana?

He añadido a esta Tabla del libro conflicts of the empires, de Israel un par de plazas que también estuvieron en poder de los españoles por muchos años. En su página 39 de Conflicts of the Empires: Spain, the low countries and the struggle for world Supremacy, apartado, Spain's Strongholds in North-West Germany y sólo teniendo en cuenta dos años,(1627-8) hace referéncia a una tabla que extrae de: Relacion de los officiales y soldados que ay en la infanteria y caballeria de todas naziones en los exercitos de Flandes y el Palatinado (Marzo 1628)

A esta lista de plazas, o territorios españoles en alemania, le he añadido yo un par, le agradecería que consultáse el libro para más ver esto al detalle:

Lingen - County of Lingen
Wesel - Duchy of Cleves
Büderich Orsoy - Duchy of Cleves
Rheinberg - Electorate of Cologne
Pfaffenmütze - Electorate of Cologne
Jülich - Duchy of Jülich (until 1660) referéncia: Doose/ Peters p 19 The Renaissance fortress of Jülich: town layout, citadel and ducal palace : origin and present appearance
Dueren - Duchy of Jülich
Eschweiler (near Aachen) - Duchy of Jülich
Grevenbroich - Duchy of Jülich
Wassenberg - Duchy of Jülich
Euskirchen - Duchy of Jülich
Aldenhoven - Duchy of Jülich
Linnich - Duchy of Jülich
Tetz - Duchy of Jülich
Erkelenz - Duchy of Jülich
Nideggen - Duchy of Jülich
Düsseldorf - Duchy of Berg
Lippstadt - Duchy of Mark
Hamm - Duchy of Mark
Unna - Duchy of Mark
Schloss Sparemberg - County of Ravensberg (provided a Spanish presence near an important river linking central Germany with the North Sea, at Bremen)
Schloss Ringelberg - County of Ravensberg
Geldern hasta 1703
Rheinberg capturada por Espínola 1606 y ocupada por españoles hasta el 1672, cuando fue capturada por las tropas de Luis XIV
Jemmingen (jemgum)
Wachtendonk 1588 -?
Schenkenschanz (opposite to kleves) ocupada del 1635 hasta el 1672
Molsheim, plaza importante, también falta.
Rheinberg ocupada desde el 1606 hasta el 1672
Hülchrath 1583 - ?

plazas añadidas, por poner alguna referéncia de las muchas que hay: J. Irvine Israel en su The Dutch Republic and the Hispanic world, 1606-1661. p.42, escribe que:

"Spanish troops expelled the Dutch and Brandenburgers from Hamm, Unna, Camen and Lippstadt in December 1623, overran the county of Ravensberg, occupying Herford and advancing as far as the River Weser. The Dutch-held fortress of Schloss Sparemberg was captured and then garrisoned by the Spanish crown albeit in the name of Neuburg."

p.38: (The Spaniards were able to initiate such ambitious and large-scale projects as their river blockade of the United Provinces in the years 1625-9 and the constructon of the Fossa Eugeniana - the Spanish Rhine-Maas canal. It was also during these years when the newtork of Spanish garrisons in north-western Germany reached its maximum extent, amounting, if the smaller outlying posts are included together with those in and around Geldern and along the Fossa Eugeniana, to around fifty fortresses and forts. The most important of these in the Lower Rhine duchies, Ravensberg, and the electorate of Cologne are as shown on Table 1.

Conflicts of the Empires, p:44 "After 1640, and the revolts of Catalonia and Portugal which did so much to weaken the Spanish monarchy, there was no longer any realistic likelihood that Spain would recover her lost footholds on the Rhine. Yet despite her greatly diminished weight in the international arena, Spain was still a significant power in western Germany, maintaining substantial garrisons at Jülich and Geldern, as well as (until 1652) further south at Frankenthal, in the Palatinate."

Los territorios perdiéronse en la guerra de los treinta años, flandes, las guerras contra Francia o el resto de pugnas por el poder europeo de los siglos XVI- XVII. Hago incapié en el sistema de fuertes de la Fossa Eugeniana, y el resto de plazas del alto y bajo palatinado, que dében incluirse en el mapa.

Un saludo Pietje96 (talk) 11:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Respuesta

Buenas Tardes, Trasamundo. Hoy hace un día primaveral estupéndo en la zona del levante español. Bueno, primero decirle que grácias por responder tan rápido y tan acertadamente.

Tengo que decirle también que no se deben confundir "Strongholds", plazas-enclaves-castillos resguardados con infantería española cerca de las ciudades/estados o dentro de ellos, y por toda europa, como es el caso de la fortaleza española "Španjola" de Herceg Novi, del asedio de Castelnuovo, en Montenegro, con algúnos de los enclaves en cuestión del palatinado. Esto es muy importante, importantísimo, la minusvaloración que hacen a veces los autores a la palabra "stronghold" es inadmisible, algunas de esas plazas que ocupó la infantería española eran lejos de ser "enclaves" militares como el de Herceg Novi, grandes ciudades minuciosamente amuralladas y directamente administradas por los virreyes. Sin contar el palatinado, en los países bajos, Amberes, Ostende, Haarlem, Naarden o Maastricht, serían ejemplos de lo que le digo, lejos de ser "bases" parecidas a las de los estadounidenses en Oriente Medio, eran ciudades administradas por los gobernantes de Flandes, en los siglos XVI-XVII auténticas ciudades, en el caso de Amberes de las más grandes de Europa. Parecidas o de igual condición a estas, serían algunas de las plazas de la Tabla de Israel, como la alemana de Rheinberg, plaza indiscutiblemente alemana pero que era considerada como otra más de Flandes. Escribió el marqués de Aytona al virrey de Bruselas que Rheinberg estaba guarnecida por 3,000 hombres añadiendo: Esta plaza, señor, -refiriendose a Rheinberg- es la mas bien pagada de Flandes porque nos parecio que era la de mayor peligro ver página 40 del libro Conflicts of the Empires, the Irvine Israel para esto de Rheinberg.

Estas se diferencian en algo con el resto, es por su largo período de tiempo bajo dominio español (5 - 10 o incluso más de 50 años) que no pueden pasar inadvertidas. No hay diferencia alguna entre esas ciudades del palatinado alemán sujetas por la infantería y administrada por virreyes hasta el año 1672 con las plazas de Frisia bajo la administración de Francisco Verdugo. Tampoco las hay con los territorios conquistados por spínola antes de la tregua de los doce años, y después, conquistados o reconquistados por spínola y velasco, que se describen territorialmente en el mapa principal suyo por estar dentro de los territorios de la herencia de Carlos V a Felipe II.

Le puse el ejemplo de la Fossa Eugeniana, sistema defensivo español creado en Alemania desde Bruselas bajo el mandato de la hija de Felipe II, Isabel Clara Eugenia, y administrado directamente desde Bruselas. No hay ningúna razon lógica por la cual no se pueda añadir y mostrar ese sistema defensivo de fuertes en el mapa junto al resto de ciudades alemanas, antaño flamencas, y hoy divididas entre el flandes occidental y el alto palatinado alemán como españolas. ej: Venlo o Wachtendonk, conquistadas por Spínola y que formaban indudablemente parte de los estados de Flandes. Aunque da la casualidad que estos territorios de la Fosa Eugeniana estaban al lado de la frontera de las 17 provincias descritas en el mapa, y que como ud. escribió es muy difícil poder trazar las fronteras con el actual mapa de wikipedia. Creo que se podría corregir o almenos marcar como influencia estas zonas.

Tiene ud razón, algunos de esos territorios se conquistaron durante guerras abiertas, -la mayoría en los palatinados durante la guerra los 30 años- por lo tanto, y según usted, esas plazas no podrían ser anexionadas o mostradas en el mapa principal, ya que cuando acabó la guerra de los 30 años no fueron anexionadas a españa bajo ningún tratado de paz.¿O sí? En mi mensaje anterior me refería a todo el conjunto de plazas y fuertes españolas, ahora, sólo a las ciudades y resto de posesiones administradas por los estados de Flandes en alemania. El problema es que muchas de estas ciudades amuralladas estaban también al lado de otras posesiones españolas en el palatinado, que si que eran enclaves, fortalezas, y no ciudades amuralladas. Sin embargo, he visto en la web, que hay descripciones territoriales de imperios que incluyen conquistas realizadas en guerras abiertas, ej: españa y la guerra del francés, así que, ¿por qué no incluir las posesiones de España en el palatinado?

Guerras abiertas, la de los Hunos, donde se ven sus, si ya no conquistas en campañas, razzias, es decir, incursiones a gran escala, donde los hunos no sabían donde iban a pasar el mes siguiente, pero que están detalladas en el mapa, algunas equiparables a los territorios españoles en el palatinado con un color verde más clarito, si bien el mapa del imperio español es mucho más contemporáneo.

También y como último recurso, me parece razonable que se haga un mapa para la sección de la guerra de los 30 años del artículo principal del imperio español, detallando las conquistas realizadas por el ejército de Flandes en los estados alemanes a través del período de la guerra de los 30 años, la verdad, según el artículo parece que España no tuviera influencia alguna en la Alemania del siglo XVII. En comparación hay un mapa animado de las conquistas europeas realizadas por la Alemania del III Reich, totalmente equiparable:

¿Qué le parece? un saludo. Pietje96 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Segunda Respuesta

Buenos días, Trasamundo. Sí, los "Países Bajos" no tuvieron virrey porque no eran "Reino", por eso tuvieron gobernadores, ¿y que es un virrey, sino un gobernante? aunque los países bajos no tuvieran virrey, tuvieron gobernadores, que a la sazón ejercían las mismas funciones que un virrey, bueno, el virrey era también gobernador en un estado, el gobernante de flandes era muchas veces irrelevante ante un general del ejército. No hay más que ver a Farnesio y las relaciones que este tuvo con su madre... ¿que digo? hasta los virreyes eran tomados por el pito del sereno, que le pregunten a Octavio de Aragón y sus juergas con el virrey de nápoles, el Duque de Osuna. Volviendo al tema que nos concierne, efectivamente, lo lógico es que se hagan esos mapas dentro del contexto de las campañas y guerras citadas. ¿Algún nombre en concreto para el mapa con los enclaves, tanto militares como no? "Spanish Enclaves/Strongholds/Territories in Germany serian opciones fáciles que me vienen a la mente. Como bien comentas, algunos de esos enclaves tuvieron gobierno, opino que en el mapa podríamos señalar con puntos azules los puramente militares y en rojo los importantes (y no importantes) con gobierno? . Además si el territorio español conquistado abarca una gran porción, como era el caso del palatinado, se podría más comodamente adjuntar a las ya posesiones de Flandes, las alemanas con líneas por encima, no en un mapa grande, si no en uno pequeño con visión sólo en el centro de europa. Mapas con las líneas a las que me refiero:[[1]] [[2]], en este, las rayitas a las que me refiero se aplican a los intentos de incursión romanos en Germania [[3]] Saludos Pietje96 (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Florida

Here's some more info (perhaps far more than you are interesting in, but I am not quite sure what time period and geographic scope you are looking into). The book The Spanish frontier in North America has a number of maps that might be useful. The text on the pages near these maps also has a lot of info. I have not read it all, but here are some links to map pages via Google Books (the last one is the most interesting):

• Map 4, "Missions in Spanish Florida, circa 1674-1675". The main missions of the late 17th century. I think you already know all about this.

• Map 5, "English Raids on Florida during the War of Spanish Succession". This mainly shows the routes of English slave raids into Florida, 1702-1704, which destroyed most of the missions—a foul bit of history during which the English of South Carolina used the war with Spain as an excuse to launch massive slave raids into Spanish Florida. After the missions fell the raids continued south to the tip of Florida, enslaving nearly the entire native population. The South Carolinian slavers were immoral and downright evil, if you ask me. Anyway, the map is interesting because it shows a line marked "Limit of Spanish Claim by Treaty of Madrid 1670", which runs due west from Port Royal Island (approx. 32° 23′ north). Not that Spain had any real occupation north of the missions at the time, but it appears that Spain had a claim by treaty. Also, 32° 23′ is almost the same as the later line for West Florida made by Britain at 32° 28′.

• Map 6, "Texas and the Gulf Coast, 1685-1721". This map shows French and Spanish missions, forts, etc. In Florida, Spain was restricted to the Gulf Coast. The French had a few forts far inland, such as Fort Toulouse and Natchez (Fort Rosalie). Both Spain and France had a number of posts east of the Mississippi, in Louisiana, Texas, Mexico, etc. (that is, not "Florida").

• Map 8, "Florida during the War of Jenkins' Ear". This map shows the few Spanish posts near St. Augustine, plus Fort San Marcos de Apalachee, plus the English towns at Frederica and Savannah. Interestingly, the old Spanish treaty claim at about 32° 23′ is shown, suggesting Spain still made the claim as late as 1740. Also shown is the English claim of South Carolina, by the 1665 Carolina Charter, which reached south into Florida beyond St. Augustine. The map also names the Spanish provinces Timucua, Guale, and Apalachee.

• Map 9, "Spanish-Franco-Indian Frontiers in the mid-18th Century". This one is similar to Map 6, showing French and Spanish posts, but later, around 1750. Pensacola is shown as Spanish. Inland French posts still include Fort Toulouse and Natchez, along with various posts west of the Mississippi and on the Gulf Coast.

• Map 14, "The Gulf Coast during the American Revolution". This one shows the "expanded" British West Florida, reaching north to 32° 28′ between the Mississippi and Chattahooche Rivers. The text near this map describes some of Spain's actions in the region during the American Revolution, including: "Spain also bought the allegiance of Indians from Illinois to Louisiana and Florida".

• Map 15, "The Disputed Spanish-American Border, 1783-1795". This might be the most interesting map in the book, on this topic (this link is to a different edition of the same book because I couldn't preview this map in the other edition on Google Books). The map shows the US border claim of 31° and the British line at 32° 28′, and also a large gray-shaded area labeled "area in dispute between U.S. and Spain". This area is much larger than British West Florida. It extends north up the Mississippi all the way to the Ohio River, then down the Tennessee River to the Hiwassee River, then due south to the Flint River, and south along that river to the Apalachicola River. Within this area the map shows the towns of Natchez and Vicksburg, and the forts of Fort Nogales, Fort Confederación, and Fort San Fernando. Interestingly, Fort San Fernando is at the Chickasaw Bluffs, which answers my earlier question about whether Spain made an effort to occupied the bluffs. Also, I note that Wikipedia has no pages on any of these forts, but there are web sources: Fort Nogales, Fort Confederación or Fort Tombécbe, and Fort San Fernando or Fort San Fernando De Las Barrancas (see also this page). The text near this map claims that the US border claim of 31° was weak, while "Spain clearly had the stronger argument, for 32° 28′..." and that Spain "also claimed the east side of the Mississippi up to the Ohio and Tennessee rivers by virtue of its successful military operations against the British in that region during the American Revolution." Apparently Spain tried to settle the dispute, perhaps making some compromise between the two extreme claims, but the US "delayed, calculating correctly that time was on its side".

As we know, the US eventually invaded and annexed the entire region and all of Florida. Even US-biased sources frequently describe the annexation of Florida as illegal violations of international law. One book I have, Habits of Empire, is particularly scathing in its assessment of the US annexation of Florida. I also have a translation of a Spanish language book called The territorial expansion of the United States: at the expense of Spain and the Hispanic-American countries (originally in Spanish as La expansión territorial de los Estados Unidos a expensas de España y de los países hispanoamericanos). Despite the clearly "biased" title and the author's biting tone, the book is quite good, historically accurate, and well referenced. It isn't free from anti-US bias, but if nothing else it provides a good Spanish counterpoint to English language books about the US's territorial expansion.

Sorry for the long post! Saludos. Pfly (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Reply to reply

Hello again. Sorry for writing in a long and fragmented way. I think I understand the issue better now and can write something more to the point, although not as tersely as I hoped.

Yes, the question is similar to the Patagonia case. Also to the lands south of the Adams-Onís Treaty line. Spain never controlled those lands, what is now the southwest US, except isolated presidios and a few small settled areas. Even the link between Mexico and New Mexico was fragile. In many ways Spanish New Mexico was "disconnected" from the rest of New Spain. So there is the issue of showing all the land south of the Adams-Onís treaty line as Spanish. In favor of that position is the strength, longevity, and international recognition of the treaty.

The case of Spanish Florida lacks a similar strong treaty line other than 31°. Spain had long claimed the whole of what is now the southeast US. A number of exploration expeditions had penetrated far inland. There were, over the centuries, a number of forts established in the interior, but none of them remained occupied very long. An argument can be made for Spanish rights by treaties, but none as strong and recognized as the Adams–Onís treaty. Neither England or France recognized the claims, or did not care about respecting them. Both England and France deliberately invaded and established forts and settlements within the region, knowing they were violating Spanish claims. So this case is quite different from the Adams–Onís case. The question, then, is what was Spanish Florida in terms of actual control and international recognition? The core of Spanish Florida was obviously the corridor between St. Augustine and Pensacola—a strip of land along the mission road that did not extend very far north or south. Also the mission region along the Sea Islands coast of what is now Georgia and southeast South Carolina was clearly Spanish before being conquered. Beyond this core region it is hard to say what does or doesn't count as "Spanish Florida".

Also, it is not clear to me where to draw a line between Spanish-controlled Florida, Texas, and Louisiana. "East Florida" had been controlled and colonized by Spain for centuries, but "West Florida" was largely French. Still, coastal West Florida has long been called "Florida" and had old links with Spanish Pensacola, so it seems reasonable to include West Florida in "Spanish Florida", at least after Spain gained control. New Orleans and the old French settlements along the lower Mississippi were clearly part of Louisiana, not Florida. These settlements were not restricted to the west side of the Mississippi River even though the definition of Louisiana came to mean only the region west of the river. The Natchez District under French and then Spanish control was, it seems to me, part of Louisiana. At least Natchez's connection with the outside world was via the river: downriver to New Orleans and upriver to St. Louis and Illinois. There was no real overland connection with Florida. The same can be said for the forts at what is now Vicksburg and Memphis. These posts were under Spanish authority for a while, but calling them part of Florida sounds very strange to me. It may be that Spain included Natchez in its own definition of Florida at the time, but such a thing would be more meaningful "on paper" than "in reality", if that makes sense.

Then we are left with a number of isolated forts, most of which did not last long. Fort Confederación (Tombécbe under France, Tombigbee or York under the Britain and the US) was long-lived, but was not under Spanish control for more than about a decade. And the fort was small and surrounded by unceded, native-controlled lands.

In short (I am trying to write tersely!), the clearest answer to the boundaries of Spanish Florida would have to be, I think, the northern border of today's state of Florida, plus the coast south of 31° to the Mississippi River (the so-called "Isle of Orleans"), plus the Sea Island coast of today's Georgia and southeast South Carolina. Beyond that things are less clear. One could also argue that Spanish Florida never included the southern half of the Florida peninsula. But the whole peninsula is typically included, even if Spain never had real power over the southern half.

This, at least, is the conclusion I've reached so far. I hope all this is useful and not too hard to translate. I always enjoy researching these things and conversing with you. Pfly (talk) 01:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One more bit. Earlier you wrote: The key issue is that the British established the border in the parallel 32 on the mouth of the Yazoo River but I am not sure if moreover the British settle in the border along the parallel 32 or merely around that zone (Yazoo). The simple answer to this is: The British (mostly "British-Americans" really) did not settle any of the interior in a significant way until well into the 19th century. The primary settlement was the Natchez District (see here). The so-called Mississippi Delta region, north of Natchez, became a major cotton plantation center, but only after about 1800 (some info here). Cotton farming the interior, away from the Mississippi River, was not possible until: 1) cotton gins, new cotton seed hybrids, and lots of money was available after about 1810, and 2) the native Choctaw, Creek, etc, were forced to cede land. The interior, native-held lands were essentially closed to non-native settlers until the Creek War, 1813–1814. Most of the interior was not promising farmland anyway, with the exception of the Black Belt, which was one of the main "prizes" the US took after the Creek War. The Natchez District was the core nucleus from which the slave/cotton plantation system developed in the interior (the South Carolina Sea Island coast was the other nucleus of the system). This chapter is another useful source. Pfly (talk) 04:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

One more last thing! Yes, I think you are exactly correct about the area labeled "43" on this map being the Natchez District ceded in 1777 to Britain. I think that treaty mentions "Loftus Cliffs" as the southern point on the boundary, no? ([4]) That would be present day Fort Adams, Mississippi, or the bluffs nearby, which are almost exactly at 31° north.

Also, you mentioned Georgia's old claim over all land west to the Mississippi River north of parallel 31. In case you didn't know, this western land claimed by Georgia's is known as the Yazoo lands. It is remembered mostly for the Yazoo land scandal of 1794 to 1803. Pfly (talk) 20:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Respect for original works and English Wikipedia heraldic Style

Original designs

Some people are changing the English Wikipedia galleries with Spanish Heraldic Group designs. These changes are no reasonable, the most used style in English Wikipedia is provided by User:Sodacan, User:Heralder and User:Adelbrecht Please DON´T REVERT AGAIN this gallery. And also, please don´t remove contents, At the gallery are clearly showed the official versions and the unofficial heraldic compositions with the Aragonese preference.

In heraldry is common that the Armorials or Heraldic Galleries show the same style. it is a basic rule. There aren´t reasons for changes, and this designs are widely used at the Spanish Wikipedia and nobody are trying to change the Spanish Wikipedia Galleries with the designs of that group.

Please, not delete again don´t wars of edition, Solid arguments for latest version are showed

• if one user wants to rever please : use the dispute resolution guidelines.

--Galico (talk) 02:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I have accepted and this evenign I have studied the arguments of your explanation and the elements that you are right according Wikipedia pillars. I accepted the part based on academic and reliable sources arguments. So, now in the gallery there aren´t the unofficial variants of the royal arms and the royal family coats of arms that are attributed. On the other hand, your (and the user that you are cited) explanation about the style is AN OPPINION. See other opinions and the final situation and you can see that in other articles Heralder style is prefered, acepted and absolutely right at the point of view of the Heraldry French Wikipedia, Armoiries de l'Espagne (discussion) and Coat of arms of Spain (English Wikipedia). I have accepted your solid reasons, the arguments related with the style are an opinion as we can see at the French article of the Spanish arms discussion. Thanks and please, don´t revert again (I lisened and accept your solid arguments)--Galico (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, If you don't like this situation I absolutely agree with you at " Unless, of course, it is possible to appeal to an administrator".--Galico (talk) 20:29, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit war

I've responded to your post at WP:AN3, please try to gain consensus for your proposed version of the article on the talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Spanish Empire map

Hello
I notice that you uploaded the map File:Spanish Empire Anachronous 0.PNG. In the legend of this map, a few dates are incorrect (namely, the Iberian Union began in 1580, not 1581; the Hispanic American wars of independence lasted from 1808 to 1833; the Spanish-American War did not last into 1899). Would you please change those dates to the correct ones?
Also, the Treaty of Baden did not affect Spanish territory; it was the Treaty of Rastatt that was perhaps meant.
Thank you. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the Iberian Union and Hispanic American wars of independence is correct, I will change the dates of the legend.

The legend in English shows Territories lost following the Spanish-American War (1898-1899), but it does not mean that they were lost during the war but because of that war.

The treaty of Baden is the treaty of Rastatt with some corrections, and while the treaty of Rastatt was agreed with the Emperor, the treaty of Baden was agreed with the Empire.

Regards. Trasamundo (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again
Sorry to bother you, but you said you would change the dates on the map and you still haven't done it. Sorry if I'm just being too impatient. 86.97.177.201 (talk) 06:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Trasamundo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese Empire map

Hello, I am wondering if you can do me a favor. I'm wondering if you would like to make a map for the Portuguese Empire article. Almost like this image, but with better graphics like your image of the Spanish Empire. You don't need to name or colour code anything though. I'm asking you since I am not capable of creating such a high quality image. I'm not making you do this though. Feel free to do whatever you like. Empirecoins (talk) 20:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Empirecoins It seems complicated because the dots are very close together and Inkscape seems to me that it will render it as a whole block. I can try it when I have a time. Trasamundo (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

@Trasamundo: Alright. Thanks anyway. Empirecoins (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

3RR

Did you know that you have violated WP:3RR on Spanish Empire? As you have been here 10 years and never been blocked before I thought I owed you a chance to explain your actions before being blocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, to the question Did you know that you have violated WP:3RR on Spanish Empire? The answer is simple, no really.

As you can see in the summary of Spanish empire, I didn't disagree about the content of the page repeatedly to impose by the way of the facts other different version, on the contrary I was restoring the article to its original version.

As you can see in the summary I was reverting to the original version explainig each edition in order to enforce policies. The Iambarage's answer has been to impose an edition without any explanation at all.

As you can see in the summary I have called to stop the edit war, therefore I haven't tried to enforce a edit war.

Finally, maybe I should have opened a discussion on the article's talk page, nevertheless I have not realized it because Iambarage did not respond absolutely nothing to my edit summaries when was imposing the photo. Trasamundo (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, reverting to the status quo is not a valid reason to violate 3RR. I appreciate you may feel justified in doing that, but being "right" has never been an excuse to edit war. So unless it is very blatant vandalism or a BLP violation, then after a couple of reverts it is better to let someone else take over. This avoids any blame being attached to yourself. I take no further action this time, but please do take care! Best wishes — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Trasamundo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Spanish Empire map

Hi Trasamundo!

I have just noticed your last edit on the Spanish Empire article. Could you please state how this discussion has already been closed?

I'm aware the map you've placed is factaully wrong, it does indeed have some territories missing. Any ideas?

--Barbudo Barbudo (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Trasamundo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)