 |
| |
|
|
Plan Austral
|
 |
Poster Formerly known as Kublai-Khan. Buenos Aires - Argentina.
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
yo dije-
Spain in its peak was the only super power,it even controlled the netherlands and a great amount of what now is called germany.
Then Spain became a tecnologically backwards country along with Turkey.
Britain in its peak was the biggest economical power, but the best army was the prussian army, and the french , austrians and the russians were also quite powerful.
The power was more shared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
me contestaron
The great Spanish Empire that controlled most of Germany like you say, was actually the pivate possesions of Charles V of Habsburg (known as Charles I of Spain, but he didn't speak Spanish, what did little good for his popularity in this country). Spain was no more conrolling Germany, Austria, Burgundy and the Netherlands that one of these part did on Spain or between them. Charles V inherited Spain from his mother and the rest from his father. When he died, his son Philip II only inherited Spain (and colonies) and the Netherlands. Maximilian, Charles's brother, inherited the original Habsburg empire.
When you consider that Charles V was born and raised in Ghent (today in Belgium) and had French as a first language (though he also spoke Latin, German and Italian), we can hardly see his Empire as a Spanish empire.
que le puedo decir?
Hay una post en el foro de world history de civfanatics.com
es una poll acerca de que imperio fue mas grande y poderoso y porque
entre el español y el britanico.
Los Brits ganan 12 a 4.
Vean lo q pueden hacer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
whosurdaddy
|
|
New York
Jun 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Sin embargo, una cosa que puedes decir es que:
Who cares if Phillip II only inherited Spain, its colonies and the Netherlands, without inheriting the original Austrian hapsburg empire as well, cause the truth is that Phillip inherited THE MOST important parts of Charles V's empire. The Austrian Empire, after all, never did become a major world power, and only was a regional European power, and a pretty second rate one at that, based on family ties, not on anything significant ...
Basically, Charles's V's empire can be compared to a human body ... one of the toes gets chopped off and thats the Austrian Empire, meanwhile, the rest of that body becomes Phillip II's empire, ok, pretty shitty analogy but u know what i mean 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plan Austral
|
|
Poster Formerly known as Kublai-Khan. Buenos Aires - Argentina.
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Se fueron al carajo
The Spanish Empire has also included the Portuguese one when both countries were unified under Philip II. This extended its range to the mini-colonies along African and Indian coast (Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome, Angola, Mozambique, Goa, Daman, Diu, Ceylan...) as well as Malacca in Malaysia, the Celbes and Molucca in Indonesia, Macao in China, a part of Nagazaki in Japan and obviously Brazil. This made a much wider empire than "just" the South American Spanish colonies. But later these empire grew up distinct again.
South America is now dominantly Native Spanish/Portuguese speaking and is culturally so as well (so countries somewhat less, like Peru and Bolivia). The religion is uniform and the people feel like a large community of Latin American (with Argentina the exception, feeling more European, but still).
In comparison, the British Empire was overwhelmingly commercial, especially after the independance of the US. Canada, Australia and NZ were the only real colonies of British settlement. African and Asian colonies were never more than administered by the UK. It surely was more peaceful and efficient than massacring all the infidels, raping, killing and converting all the people living there before their arrival, as the Spanish did. Nowadays, English is more widely spoken than Spanish, but fewer have it as a native language. I have travelled around all India and was happy to see that uneducated poor people could understand some English, but very few speak it fluently.
Today, people see the Aztec, Mayan and Inca ruins as part of Spanish speaking countries. Some would almost say it's a part of Spanish cultural heritage ! But never would even think of the Taj Mahal or the Great Pyramids has being part of an English speaking country (not even has an Arabic heritage for the Pyramids). It shows how deep has been the Spanish deculturisation of South America to impose its own system, language and especially religion. Look at the oddity that are the Christian Philippines in Asia, in the middle of Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianist, Taoist (now more Maoist, though ), Shinto and other Animists. They are one of the most fanatical Catholic group in the world. Did you see in the news yesterday that a man even cut his penis, inspired by the Bible, because lead him to sin !! (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/200...penis_dc_1.html)
But without the British there would be Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, NZ, Canada, the USA and many others. Or at least not as we know them today. Even the future of India owns a lot to the British - Aren't 20 millions of upper class Indian Native English speaker having studied in England for most of them ? Isn't English the lingua franca of India, even more than Hindi, because the South Indian prefer English to Hindi. It is anyway the main administrative language used by the government.
I chose the British Empire because it was more civilised and had a more global influence. But the Spanish empire was impressive as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plan Austral
|
|
Poster Formerly known as Kublai-Khan. Buenos Aires - Argentina.
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Si la verdad tenes razon, le dije que le voy a buscar una direccion de pagina para que se informe q nunca le voy a dar esperando que esa thread se muera lo mas antes posible-it sucks.
Yo les dije que x ejemplo una de las razones de la introduccion de la mano de obra negra fue la fuerte legislation pretegiendo a los aborigenes y me respondieron esto.
Was there any legislation protecting the Indians at that time ? Spanish Colonies, until their independance in the early 19th century, were probably not a place where legislation had a important place. In the 16th century, soon after the Europeans established their first colonies, slaves were already being "imported" from West Africa. I think that many people (criminals, last-chance people who'd lost everything or had nothing to loose, persecuted protestants, etc.) actualy emigrated from Europe to America justly because there were virtually no laws (except taxs and respect of the royal authority) and they'd be free to start a new life in a new world again. This was valid for all the continent. After the US independance, it was still true in the "wild west" that had not yet been assimilated as a part of the country (at least not as states). This explain the violence between "Cowboys and Indians" and the presence of so many bandits and gangs. Later, there had to be sheriffs in each town that did their own laws to preserve the society from these gangs or lonely bandit thirsty of gold and dollars.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
whosurdaddy
|
|
New York
Jun 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Bueno, entonces no estoy ofendido si simplemente es que te entendí mal.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kurgan
|
 |
Belgium
May 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Simplemente preguntales por que Inglaterra no invadio y cultirizo el Imperio español, enumerando todas susposesiones, desde Filipinas a Peru, Napoles y Sicilia, Holanda o Austria, ya que era un Imperio tan debil. Preguntales porque en las pelis de piratas de la epoca, todos los ingleses son precisamente eso, piratas, no almirantes de poderosas flotas de invasión, preguntales si no sera que no tenian recursos ni medios para hacer nada mas que incursiones como los buitres. Tambien puedes preguntarles porque Maria Tudor se caso con Felipe II, rey de un pais de barbaros fuera de la ley. Con todo esto si te contestan que fueron muy buenos y que si no invadian el Imperio español fue por dejarnos disfrutar de un periodo de hegemonia, y que prefirieron demostrar el poder que realmente tenian en el siglo XIX (400 años despues), ya sabras que sus argumentos son partidistas ademas de estupidos. Ademas aunque ya ha sido mencionado en otras respuestas, Carlos I (y V) hablaba español (recordar su famosa frase de "Hablo en Frances a las... etc"), vivio la mayor parte de su vida en España, eligio retirarse en España, o a lo mejor se creen que el Monasterio de Yuste esta en los USA, ya que gran parte de el sur de los USA fue parte del Hopeless Imperio español, hablamos de Texas, California, o Florida, vamos los Estados menos poblados y pobres y menos atractivos. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Plan Austral
|
|
Poster Formerly known as Kublai-Khan. Buenos Aires - Argentina.
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Actualizacion
Magnus-The Spanish plundered and the English colonized. Big difference.
Knowltok-
Something that should be kept in mind about the various groups of American Indians.
1. The Spanish encountered empires with structure. The British, and the Americans encountered tribes, with very little structure.
2. The terrain and setting were quite different. Central American natives used to living in cities could no more melt into the jungle than could the Spanish. The NA natives were quite at home in small bands in the forrests and plains of NA. They also had a much greater area in which to hide and manuver.
3. When the spanish made their conquest the natives had no idea about guns or horses. By the time the Americans got to the great plains, the natives were framilier with guns, and had become a horse culture.
The point is to show how much more difficult the NA natives were to conquer than the Central and SA natives. This in no way is meant to justify the treatment of the NA natives, nor the short-sightedness of those making deals with them. Rather to illustrate that vast numbers of the natives could not be conquered in one fell swoop, which allowed the Spanish the option of mixng with the natives.
Okay, let fly.
Julien
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Julien, you are right (and Possibly you know more history than I), but dont forget that the empire capital was in Spain, all territories in Europe, Africa and America was governed from there, and the king was Spanish, In consequence it was the Spanish empire and seems to be a bit absurd to deny it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What capital are you speaking about ? Oh, allright, the Spanish colonies. Yes, they were indeed governed from Spain. Do you know what was the capital of Spain during Charles V 's reign ? I am not going to tell you, I'll wait your answer. But when Charles arrived in Spain at the age of 15 to take his inheritance and become king, he didn't speak a word of Spanish and took his Burgundian and Flemish court with him. That caused the Spanish nobles to revolt against him, feeling that Spain was now govern by foreigner and no more Spaniards. After that, Charles spent most of his life outside Spain, from Italy to the Netherlands via Austria and Germany, if it weren't for his years of retirement in a monastry close to Portugal.
What's more, Spain has NEVER govern Austria or Germany or be its capital. the Habsburg capital has always been in Wien (Vienna). There was no real German capital, because the Holy Roman Empire was an amalgamation of independant states with their own capital. The official capital could have been Rome (in name, like in Holy ROMAN empire and the pope crowning every emperor, but not a de facto capital though). Spain under Philip II (Charles V's son) was indeed governing the Netherlands and Southern Spain (Kingdom of 2 Sicily) and even Portugal a short time, but that's all. When the United Provinces of the Netherlands acquired their independance in the mid-17th century, Spain was left with only the Southern part of the Benelux, and not even all as the quite big principalty of Liege (Luettich in German) has always been an independant Holy Roman state.
Sodak-
Originally posted by Julien
...it was still true in the "wild west" that had not yet been assimilated as a part of the country (at least not as states). This explain the violence between "Cowboys and Indians" and the presence of so many bandits and gangs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really. The violence was due to whites encroaching on indian lands. The US established hundreds of treaties with indians, granting them (their own) lands, and assurance that whites would keep out. Not a single treaty was honored by the US. As soon as it seemed inconventient to leave an area alone, settlers and profit seekers from the east would move into indian land, which inevitably caused conflict. Or the US would build a railroad across prime hunting grounds. Or they would just move in and massacre indians just to intimidate them and their neighbors.
Understandably, the indians were not amused with this appalling behavior. Perhaps after it was too late, they simply begain terrorizing the encroaching whites, as it was clear the army was not about the help them, despite promises to the contrary. Lawlessness was the direct result of US policy to exterminate or exile all indians deemed to be in the way.
Regarding laws protecting indians, I've heard of nothing of the sort for anywhere in the americas. Well, maybe there were pieces of paper stating something to that effect, but nowhere was protection practiced, from Labrador to Tierra del Fuego. If protection was offered on the condition of conversion to christianity and abandonment of traditional ways, then it is not protection. Then it is cultural destruction - do as we do, or die.
The French at least took a more realistic approach, treating the indians as humans. Maybe this was because they needed them as allies in the political chess games against England, not because they would have done any differently in other circumstances, I don't know. But the effect was different. The English had their very lives to thank the indians, but showed their appreciation by killing and exiling them. The Spanish sought to destroy their cultures and subdue them. None of the europeans made any effort to help or protect them except when expedient to their own schemes.
Sodak-
Originally posted by Magnus
The Spanish plundered and the English colonized. Big difference.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, actually, I don't get this joke...
Huh? What are you talking about? The Spanish colonized, too - that's why people of european stock are the majority (or largest minority, after majority blacks) in almost all latin american countries! Did the English not plunder and kill? They most definitely did. The booty was worth less than what the Spanish took, but $ value isn't what separates plunder from some other, more benign, activity.
Beammeuppy-Originally posted by Julien
Spain under Philip II (Charles V's son) was indeed governing the Netherlands and Southern Spain (Kingdom of 2 Sicily) and even Portugal a short time, but that's all. When the United Provinces of the Netherlands acquired their independance in the mid-17th century, Spain was left with only the Southern part of the Benelux, and not even all as the quite big principalty of Liege (Luettich in German) has always been an independant Holy Roman state.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to this, Philip II had governance and control only in name over the Northern Netherlands which basically became independant by the Union of Utrecht (1579) and was internationally recognized as an independant state at the Peace of Munster (1648). This not only marked the end of the first European Civil War or 30-year war, but also of the Dutch Independance war, the 80-year war.
IMHO neither the British nor Spanish empires ever had the impact of the Roman Empire so the only real vote here is for the Romans!
Jorge-
I would like to say some things about the Spanish history (as a native I am supposed to know it well).
Jullien is partially right. Charles V became king of many territories because he inherited them. But there is one thing that Jullien is missing. The most powerful kingdom of all was Castilla, and it was there where he installed his court. So we can say that the capital of all the inherited territories was the capital of Castilla, Toledo. Later, Charles V became emperor of the Holy Empire, which only is a title, he didn’t actually govern all Germany, Austria … just the territories he inherited before becoming emperor. This was a disaster for Castilla (Spain) because Charles V used all the power of Castilla (the soldiers for the army and the gold that came every year from the American colonies) to save the unity of the Catholicism (after all he was the Emperor of the Holy Empire). Many of the wars that Spain held in that period were because of this. He, and later his son Philip II, buried Spain even more (Spain was already a catholic country, I’m not going to blame only on the Habsburg dynasty) in the religious fanatism.
Anyway, the period of maximum power for the Spanish empire was with Philip II. Here it’s clear that we can already say that all the territories of the empire were dominated and governed by Spain.
If I had to reply to the question I would say that the Spanish empire was more powerful, but the English was more civilized.
Pavelsu-
First, thank you for worrying for my education, Julien, but I already am studying Hispanic philology and go to Spain very often.
Charles's I court (Charles V is not correct becuse he was nominated this way only in Germany ) was in valladolid, though Toledo was a very important city.
Charles I was Spanish, his mother and his father were Spanish, when he was crowned he went to Spain because Spain was the most important country of the whole empire and because he was Spanish, the fact that his court was foreign (a little time, since soon he got rid of it) is anecdotal.
As for the forefathers of his father you should know that the European monarchies are very international. Not for it the current prince of Spain (principe de Astorias) is Greek, though his mother is Greek. Besides, the grandfathers do not determine the nationality of a person!.
It is incredible since how you and some historians (English in the main), wring the history to shape it to yours taste. You have something personal in opposition to the history of Spain?. Do not wring it any more, poor history!!
One more thing: The proof that the Spanish empire was much more powerful than the English empire is that Spain has never felt threatened by the English power, except for any punctual assault of the pirates (the english men always have been perfect pirates). Nevertheless England has been for centuries entrenched after the channel, looking to Spain (and to other European countries) with fear.
Julien-
First, thank you for worrying for my education, Julien, but I already am studying Hispanic philology and go to Spain very often.
Charles's I court (Charles V is not correct becuse he was nominated this way only in Germany ) was in valladolid, though Toledo was a very important city.
Charles I was Spanish, his mother and his father were Spanish, when he was crowned he went to Spain because Spain was the most important country of the whole empire and because he was Spanish, the fact that his court was foreign (a little time, since soon he got rid of it) is anecdotal.
Charles I was Spanish, his mother and his father were Spanish, when he was crowned he went to Spain because Spain was the most important country of the whole empire and because he was Spanish, the fact that his court was foreign (a little time, since soon he got rid of it) is anecdotal.
As for the forefathers of his father you should know that the European monarchies are very international. Not for it the current prince of Spain (principe de Astorias) is Greek, though his mother is Greek. Besides, the grandfathers do not determine the nationality of a person!.
It is incredible since how you and some historians (English in the main), wring the history to shape it to yours taste. You have something personal in opposition to the history of Spain?. Do not wring it any more, poor history!!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, I have studied 2 months in Spain this year and took the oportunity to travel around the country (also Portugal) and learn its history in greater depth (as I am already graduated in history/philosophy).
It seems strange to see how history books are written diferently from one country to the other, as you noticed it. On Internet, I saw on some sites that Charles I/V was born in Spain, and on others in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium), the latter I believe to be true. Just have a look at these sites and compare :
http://wwwdumas.sesc.k12.ar.us/~hispanic/charlesv.htm
(obvious mistake that San Juste was the place were he died and not were he was born)
Then, Maximilian of Habsburg (ie of Austria) was his paternal grandfather, what should give him an Austrian nationality, as his Spanish origins were on the maternal side. It has always been like this. Not because I am not aware of the very international character of the European monarchies.
The biography of Charles V I read a few years ago (in French, Gallimard edtion) are the source of most information I wrote about, like his foreign court in Spain, the fact that he didn't speak Spanish and was born and bred in Ghent, surrounded by a Burgundian court.
Now, if Spanish history books say differently, who knows who is right. I don't want to take anybody's side here, as I can't prove facts like this and have to get my information from a book like you. English book probably wring the history to their advantage, as do all others. Why were you told that Charles had to be he First and it was a mistake to call him the Fifth ? Because of your Spanish background. French call him Charles Quint, from the old French word for 5 and was the title with which he was the most commonly known throughout Europe at that time. French was also his native and educational language (and this you can't deny it).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Marquis de Sodaq
|
 |
... no, a Marquis.
Jul 2000
time: 23:16
|
|
Ah, yes, another thread of Spain-bashing kept active by a horde of people who just don't know both sides of the argument. Or a third side, as I (Sodak) happened to argue for los indigenos.
In general, this argument is not different from the Ribannah (and now also molly_bloom  ) nonsense that goes on here at Apolyton. People with no idea about Spanish history arguing about its faults.
Arguing that Charles V spoke french is pointless, as is his impure blood. He was the ruler of the Spanish empire, he could have been a Zulu, for all that matters. If an empire is only legitimate if its king is of pure blood, few european monarchies would even qualify. It's just an easy tactic to use by the English, as their governmental system allows them to sidestep the argument in their own case. Basically, either the English empire fails on the same points, or they are moot (irrelevant).
That the English were kind colonizers and the Spanish evil destroyers is simply nonsense. The English were ruthless in their dealings with los indigenos, with the primary aim to eliminate them so as to take their lands. The Spanish sought to convert them to christianity and assimilate them. Also to take their lands, of course, but not with the direct goal of killing them off. In other words, the Spanish sought to destroy their cultures, the English to destroy them completely. Neither seems in a position to take the moral high ground.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Estilpón
|
|
Azote de creyentes (y crédulos) Valencia EU
Aug 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whosurdaddy
In all seriousness though, I don't see any specific animosity towards the hispanic world here, and certainly not nearly as much as towards the Russians and Chinese for example. Lets not forget some 25 million out of 280 million Americans are of hispanic background, including my grandmother who's family came from Spain before moving to puerto rico and then the united states, so there is a lot that actually links our worlds, much more so than separates them i think. |
Ya decía yo, demasiado comprensivo...
La verdad es que los ingleses sienten una atracción por la historia de España, y al menos académicamente, por lo que yo he leído son imparciales... Debe ser - la atracción - por la rivalidad histórica que existió.
Ahora mismo estoy leyendo una biografía del conde-duque de Olivares de lo más interesante, escrita por (como no), un hispanista (es decir, un hijo dela pérfida Albión...) 
Otra cosa son los tabloides ¿eh? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jasev
|
 |
of the SCS Forum
Feb 2001
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Estilpón
Ya decía yo, demasiado comprensivo...
La verdad es que los ingleses sienten una atracción por la historia de España, y al menos académicamente, por lo que yo he leído son imparciales... Debe ser - la atracción - por la rivalidad histórica que existió.
Ahora mismo estoy leyendo una biografía del conde-duque de Olivares de lo más interesante, escrita por (como no), un hispanista (es decir, un hijo dela pérfida Albión...)
Otra cosa son los tabloides ¿eh? |
Es cierto que los hispanistas británicos son los mejores estudiosos de la historia de España; resulta paradójico. Dice J.H.Elliott en su "España Imperial":
"Una tierra seca, estéril y pobre [...] una península separada del continente europeo por la barrera montañosa de los Pirineos, aislada y remota. [...] La carencia de recursos naturales resulta abrumadora. Sin embargo, en los últimos años del S.XV y primero sdel XVI, pareció como si hubiese sido superada, de modo repentino y casi milagroso."
La clave es que los ingleses no se pueden creer que con una base como la nuestra tuviéramos a Europa -y sí, también a ellos- bien cogidos por los conojes durante siglo y medio. Por eso los historiadores británicos se sienten fascinados por España.
Pero como dice Pérez-Reverte, no hay que confundir a los refinados intelectuales británicos con la masa que lee los tabloides. Para ellos, España es sinónimo de inquisición (¿recordáis los Monty Phyton?), oscurantismo, la armada invencible (que no paran de recordarnos con mucho cachondeo), Trafalgar, y la gripe española de 1919 (cayeron como moscas, y decidieron que una gripe tan malísima sólo podía ser nuestra ).
Por cierto Estilpón, si la biografía del conde-duque que estás leyendo es la de Elliott, te felicito; es una verdadera joya.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Jay Bee
|
 |
Valladolid, CA
Jan 1970
time: 06:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by whosurdaddy
No sean tan paranoicos. Don't kid yourselves thinkin u guys are somehow special, we all know very well that the Anglo world has no specific xenophobia against the hispanic world. Rather, we are xenophobic towards ALL other nations, regardless of ethnic background 
In all seriousness though, I don't see any specific animosity towards the hispanic world here, and certainly not nearly as much as towards the Russians and Chinese for example. Lets not forget some 25 million out of 280 million Americans are of hispanic background, including my grandmother who's family came from Spain before moving to puerto rico and then the united states, so there is a lot that actually links our worlds, much more so than separates them i think. |
Whos, of course of course. There is however too much ignorance. Please tell us about those beautiful conquistador stories that are told in US high schools
Tell me about that extraodinarily enlightening comment by an American in the civfanatics thread (England colonized, Spain plundered)... that's exactly what I was referring to in that previous post of mine that you misunderstood. Regretably there is still a lot of misunderstandings between the Hispanic and Anglo worlds. Both ways, eh?. It's a pity but that's the way it is.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-12-2001 09:09
|