Talk:War of the Spanish Succession/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Discuss about the combatants, please

My idea for the combatants would be this. It fits with WP:MILHILST and WP:MILHILST/MCI. I've already tried to put it in the article, but Albrecht keeps removing it.

Combatant 1:

Austriacists
Crown of Aragon
Dutch Republic1

England — Kingdom of Great Britain 2

Holy Roman Empire

Portugal

Combatant 2:

Bourbonics1

Electorate of Bavaria 

Kingdom of France

Kingdom of Spain

———————————————————————————————————————

1st reference:

Above an European War, the War of the Spanish Succession was a Spanish civil war, which confronted the peoples of the Empire, not only in the mainland but also in the colonies. In this context of internal troubles, those who decided to follow the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI received the nickname of Austriacists (because they supported the House of Austria), while those who chose Philip V of Spain were called Bourbonics (because they supported the House of Bourbon), or Philippists. In castilian, the term borbónico (Bourbonic) can be found in the DRAE online dictionary: 1. In Catalan, the terms filipista (Philippist), austriacista (Austriacist) and borbònic (Bourbonic) can be found in the Online Dictionary of IEC: 1, 2, 3. In a satirical meaning, other names were also used to define the combatants of each side. Examples of this are the Catalan terms botifler (meaning someone with inflated cheeks; it can be understood as a synonym of traitor), which was used by the Austriacists to insult the Bourbonic supporters in Catalonia, and maulet, which was used to define the Austriacist supporters in Catalonia. These terms can also be found in the Online Dictionary of IEC: 1, 2. By adding the coats of arms of the two pretenders to the throne, all those individuals who fought in one or the other side of the conflict are represented in the infobox.

2nd reference:

fter the Acts of Union of 1707, the Kingdom of England was merged with the Kingdom of Scotland, giving birth to the Kingdom of Great Britain.

———————————————————————————————————————

I think it's much better than (1) just putting England in the combatants' list instead of explaining that at the begin it was England but at the end was also Great Britain (which is a lot different) and (2) ignoring the fact that it was a Spanish civil war and thus there were Austriacists and Borbonics (or Philippists).

Onofre Bouvila 18:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Too good not to be better

I haven't contributed, and I've tweaked now just for forcefulness and clarity, but may I express a couple of thoughts anyway?

  • "Louis XIV was the son of a Spanish princess, Anne of Austria": this is an awkward phrase. Wouldn't "Habsburg" do better?
    • She was called "Anne of Austria" because the Habsburg dynasty in Spain was known as the Austrian dynasty. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes John is right. Furthermore not only were they known by everybody in Spain as "Los Austria" but when trying to differentiate them for the other Austrians (those from Austria) they used to refer to the "Austrias menores" and "Austrias mayores" meaning the "minor" and the "mayor."--Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • (caption) " allowing his son to inherit Spain would seriously compromise the balance of power in Europe" Paradoxically, cutting "seriously" would make the compromise more serious.
  • "the renunciation was widely seen as invalid" By the French diplomats and lawyers, one assumes: a detail would be good here. The phrase "was widely seeen" should be banned!
    • The renunciation was premised on payment of a dowry that was not paid. Even many of the Spanish didn't really think it was valid any longer. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Hmmm ... Yes, a detail would be good, but not so sure such phrase is bad.--Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "in 1697, the issue of the Spanish succession was becoming critical" Charles II's senility should be made explicit.
    • Not senile - he was only 36 years old! Just in very bad health. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • without consulting the Spanish, who vehemently objected" A linked reference to the cortès might be good, if that's what "the Spanish" actually means. (I've inserted a mention of them lower down in the text.)
    • No, it means the Spanish government - the King and his ministers, who did not want to partition the Spanish lands. The Cortes were only Castilian, in any case, so they wouldn't particularly care about what happened to Milan. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "allotted Austria that which it desired most: the Spanish territories in Italy" Shouldn't they be specified, without too minute detail? I know they come in at the end...
    • Agree. Good idea. --Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Though Duke of X is the norm, the form duc de X doesn't take a capital. Perhaps no one cares.
    • We've had some discussion of this. While in French "duc de X" doesn't take a capital, I think, given that it's referring to a person in a context that would take a capital in English, it should probably be capitalized in an English article. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Text is missing from the sentence "Marlborough for Portugal and Savoy had defected to the other side."
  • If Blenheim is really the climax, then it's not emphasized strongly enough.
    • I'd say it wasn't the climax... john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "In 1706, the Earl of Galway led an invasion of Spain " Since Berwick is on the French side, the nature of Galway's force (English? mixed?) might indicate more clearly his British allegiance.
    • I think a mixed allied force, but not sure. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • "(although there was some sense in France that this renunciation was illegal)" Was there even a public whisper of this? Shall I look it up in Saint-Simon?
    • The French foreign minister, Torcy, believed the renunciation was illegal. So did all of Louis XIV's legal experts. It was generally seen to be highly questionable. When Louis XV caught smallpox in 1729, Philip V was sitting at the border waiting to go into France when he inherited it. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

All in all, what a terrific job! --Wetman 06:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Although this article is great, clear, and full of information, some of the red links and linked to stubs should be worked on. Im trying to help Treaty of Baden and Treaty of Rastatt, but any more help would be welcome. Tom 20:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Language

  • Why is this featured article using a language like that in the description of the picture ?
    • I have no idea what this might refer to. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Warbox?

Should this article have a warbox?I'm neutral on the subject,but if it doesn't get a warbox their should at the very least be an easy way to navigate the different battles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.224.243.198 (talk • contribs) 8 Oct 2005

Template:Catalan-speaking world

I don't accept the argument User:Anagnorisis is making against the inclusion of Template:Catalan-speaking world in this article. As I wrote in my edit summary, "As a key event in the history of the Catalan-speaking world, this Template:Catalan-speaking world certainly belongs; it may be that others should be added for other contexts." He responded "A template that has modern painters and football teams is not related to the events of 300 years ago." That strikes me as, basically, a non sequitir.

One might as well say that Template:African American topics sidebar cannot belong on practically any article, because it mentions both the slave trade and a baseball league, and there aren't going to be many articles to which both are directly related. This ignores that the common thread of national/ethnic experience is the reason for the template in the first place, and is the thing that ties these together.

My own view is that there are too many football teams on Template:Catalan-speaking world. I had initially included FC Barcelona because they were such a symbol during the Franco era, one of the few rallying points of Catalan nationalism in a repressive time. People kept adding others; I don't think the others belong, but no one has backed me up on this, help would be welcome. But using that criticism of the template's contents to argue that Template:Catalan-speaking world doesn't belong on a crucial event in the history of the Catalans strikes me as absolutely wrong. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand what you say. However, I still disagree with having the template there. As to the point you make about the Template:African American topics sidebar template ... I do not understand. It strikes me as more of the same. Are you trying to justify a wrong with perhaps another wrong? What does where that other template is inserted have to do with this Catalan template. Why then not having the templates for France and Spain and whatnot in the article? (I hope I do not sound too harsh -If I do, I am sorry). This is an article about historic events of 300 years ago; not about the Catalan speaking world of today. By the way, I am not disputing the relevance that the events covered in the article had in the history of the Catalans ..... But again, the article is not about the Catalan speaking world; it is about a set of specific events that took place 300 years ago. For this reason alone (in my not-so-humble opinion :-) ), the template doesn't belong. Of course, mine may be the minority view and in that case the template would end up in the article. If so, then so be it. But somehow I do not think so. Cheers. --Anagnorisis 22:15, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Anagnorisis. This historical information, without any doubt, one of the most relevant events for Catalan-speaking world. It's important to read this article if you want to understand current topics such as Catalan language situation or related political issues such as Catalan nationalism. I think that having this template inserted in this article is really a good choice, so readers may learn from related topics in a specific area. I have taken a look at AfricanAmerican template and I find it wonderful, as well. Toniher 14:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Toniher. Yes, your points are valid. However I still disagree. Let me try explaining myself better. I will try to give another example of why I still think the argument doesn't work for these articles. I will use the same logic used by streching it a bit and applying it to other cases. Lets say we are reading about the French Revolution. We could argue that because the French Revolution at the time it happened by key in spreading some ideas around the world that became the catalist to the wars of independece in the Americas, then we insert templates of the American countries in it. Or say we are reading an article about the Catholic church, and given that the evangelization policies of the church and the European nations were key in shaping many countries today, we place the Brazilian, Mexican and Philippines templates inside the article about the Catholic church. See? I do not debate the relevance of one set of events to the development of another culture or nation or whatever you want to call it, what I argue about the inclusion of the template. One article about informing people of some facts. The other is about the consequences from those acts. Cause and effect. Perhaps in the effected topics one could talk about the causes, but in the causing articles one does not need to go into all such details. If not, imagine how the Roman empire article would look. Because then by the same rationale we could also have the Catalan speaking world template in the Roman empire article. BTW, I haven't even looked yet at the AfricanAmerican template. :-) --Anagnorisis 17:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Hello Agnorisis, I understand you are questioning the very templates. Maybe this should be discussed generally in another place :-) I would join the discussion if you propose it somewhere in this wikipedia. Well, of course, entries in templates such be restricted if we do not want to end up in dinosaurs era. Accordingly, Catalan-speaking template has been cleaned from sport teams. Maybe instead of this War, I would rather substitute it with Decretos de Nueva Planta, which might be regarded as a more restricted and specific event centered on Catalan-specific world, as it's done with Treaty of Pyrenees. IMHO, I consider these topics/templates such be included since I think they are useful for interested readers. Toniher 10:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Toniher, I do not think I question the very templates. I just question their inclusion in some articles. By this, I mean that just because events long ago had influence still felt to this day in a region doesn't mean the reverse is that relevant to understanding the article. If anything, it should be the other way around: having in the article about things today (in this case things Catalan), a reference to things from long ago (in this case these wars). I look once again at the template and I do not see why someone wanting to read about historic events taking place in Europe 300 years ago would want a template in the article with links to Castells · Correfocs · Myths and legends · Generalitat de Catalunya · Generalitat Valenciana · Salvador Dalí · Joan Miró, etc. And again, if the issue is one of recency, please allow me to give you another example more recent: imagine the article about WWII. Coudn't by the same reasoning then one want to include there a template about its effect in the Eastern European Countries (and one would then have in that template all the countries, the artists, the legends, etc, of those countries). Now, having WWII had such impact in other things, one could include there a template for the country of Israel and the Jewish culture and another template for France, etc. Or what about having templates for all the countries impacted by the Napeleonic Wars? I am not sure I am explaining myself well, but IMO a template that does not really fit the article and tries to promote someothing else distracts from the actual topic being touched and amounts to a promotional attempt of the other topics (in this case the Catalan world). Again, I could want trying to promote reading all kind of things about the Philippines by inserting a template that draws readers to Filipino artists by inserting a similar template in the article about the Spanish-American War. Of course it would be unfair doing so inless we also included two more templates: one for the Spanish Speaking countries and another for the USA. Yes, templates that would have modern day artists from the USA and Cuba and Spain, and ... Somehow I foresee I will loose this debate. Again, this is all just my POV :-) Cheers. --Anagnorisis 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the substitution of Decretos de Nueva Planta in the template and the placement of the template on that article instead of this one would be a good compromise. Anagnorisis, would you also accept that? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
I am not sure I understood what the proposal is (though it sounds as making sense - whatever it is). Looking at the article Decretos de Nueva Planta, it certainly is very much related to this War. But I am not sure I understand what will go where. Thinking about it, all that is in the Decretos de Nueva Planta article could be at the end of this one as part of the explanation of the inmediate aftermath following the wars; in the "result" section (somehow I find that world 'result' lacking - what about changing it to 'aftermath' or 'consequences'?). --Anagnorisis 04:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious motives?

"Other states joined the coalition opposing France and Spain in an attempt to acquire new territories, or to protect existing dominions." This needs to be viewed in the context of the Catholic Counter Reformation against the Protestants. Spain and France are Catholic bulwarks. Other nations may have joined merely to preserve the Protestant cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.235.44.73 (talk • contribs) 15 Feb 2006

But Austrians Habsburks was catholic too. Savoy too. :-) Cinik 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

I think the article could benefit greatly from adding an infobox, like the widely used Template:Infobox Military Conflict. CG 16:29, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Portugal?

Why isn't Portugal mentioned in the list of combatants? The article mentions the country some times, and its role against Spain (such as the capture of Madrid by the Marquis of Minas).--213.58.24.208 12:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added it, and corrected some other stuff.

Onofre Bouvila 08:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Shabby

This article has become very shabby. Spelling mistakes, broken links, a very poor infobox, no campaign box, badly positioned picture, lack of pictures, broken reference links, more info needed - needs alot of work for FA standard Raymond Palmer 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. In the lead, "to safeguard the Protestant succession" is very unclear: Protestantism is mentioned only one other time in the article, and not in an obviously related context. Can someone clarify? - Jmabel | Talk 21:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
For the paragraph that begins "The most direct and legitimate successor would have been Louis, the Grand Dauphin…", a chart of these very convoluted relationships would be very helpful. - Jmabel | Talk 21:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, there are no footnotes which is a prerequisite for a FA now. Raymond Palmer 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It's good to see that our standards are going up. I don't think I'd want to nominate it to be removed from the FA list, it's not really an embarrassment, but it could use being brought up to our current standards. - Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Look at the sourcing, as well - we've got Lord Acton (1906), 1911 Britannica, an account from 1713, a book from 1951, and an article about technical legal issues with the renunciations, from the POV of 21st century French Legitimism (insofar as 21st century French legitimism exists, it does so in the form of Guy Stair Sainty). At a thought, some potential sources would be John Lynn's book on the Wars of Louis XIV (quite recent), and McKay and Scott's The Rise of the Great Powers 1648-1815 (from the 70s, I think) for the diplomacy. There's also a number of books by Jeremy Black which might be useful. I doubt that this article, at this point, really qualifies to be featured. It's a detailed article that does a fairly good job, I think, on giving the narrative, but I don't know that that's sufficient. john k 21:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't we also give background on how at this time even Iberian Spain (let alone the Empire) was by no means a unified nation: there really was no "King of Spain", there was a "King of the Spains". The crowns of Castile and Aragon were still formally quite separate, and the Crown of Aragon was at least three distinct kingdoms (Aragon, Catalonia, and Valencia), each with its own laws; I believe (though things changed enough at different dates that I'm not sure) that the Balearics, or at least Mallorca, may have constituted a separate entity as well. Otherwise, these regions trying to go their own way is rather mysterious. I assume (though I don't have a reference for this) that they would have been very wary of the centralizing tendencies that had been displayed by Louis XIV (and which, in the event, would ultimately be visited upon them after defeat in the war). - Jmabel | Talk 22:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
There was a medieval title of "King of Majorca," but I don't think it was its own kingdom. I'm not sure, though, what it was part of - possibly Valencia. Sardinia was also arguably part of the crown of Aragon, though, and maybe even the two Sicilian kingdoms. john k 23:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
When originally set up, the Kingdoms of Majorca and Sicily (Trinacria) were given to junior branches of the Aragonese royal line (then ruling in Aragon and Valencia). The Kings of Aragon acquired Sardinia and Corsica as papal fiefs in 1303, but conquered only Sardinia, and that in 1409, after a struggle of almost a century. In 1343, James III of Majorca was declared a "contumacious vassal", and his kingdom (consisting of the Balearic Islands and the counties of Cerdagne and Roussillon) was added to the other realms of Aragon. Sicily was inherited in 1409 and carried over through the Compromise of Caspe; Naples was held jointly for a few years but then went to a junior line, and was only reattached by conquest in 1504. Of the Aragonese realms, the Cortes of Valencia would be associated with the Kingdom of Valencia, the Cortes of Catalonia with the County of Barcelona, and the Cortes of Aragon with the Kingdom of Aragon. Given that the capital of the old Kingdom of Majorca was at Perpignan on the mainland, in Catalonia, I would guess that the Balearics were more closely associated with the Cortes of Catalonia than the other two. Choess 02:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
But were all of the Balearics part of "Valencia" at that date? Quite possibly so. Anyway, a map of the Spanish territories at the start of the war, marking out whatever were considered separate kingdoms or possessions would be a good addition to the article. - Jmabel | Talk 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, should we perhaps list the Jacobites as another combatant on the Franco-Bavarian side? - Jmabel | Talk 00:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another thing: the article is really all campaigns and dynasties. No discussion at all of how this affected daily life in Europe, nothing tying it to intellectual history, little on geopolitics other than a nod to "balance of power". - Jmabel | Talk 00:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Still more: we should also mention the points of intersection with the Great Northern War (how events in that war effected the participation of Denmark and Brandenburg (Saxony is already mentioned) and also the Hungarian insurrection. There also needs to be added the Archbishopric of Cologne to the pro-Bourbon camp. None of the Italian combatants are named, either. Malbrook 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Were there any italian combatants besides the Duke of Savoy, who switched sides? I don't recall Venice, Tuscany, the Pope, or any of the smaller states being directly involved. I seem to recall that the Emperor annexed Mantua to the Duchy of Milan in 1708 (having conquered Milan in 1706), but I don't remember the significance of this. In terms of German states, were Bavaria and Cologne the only significant ones to take the French side, besides the various ecclesiastical states in personal union with Cologne (apparently Joseph Clemens, Archbishop-Elector of Cologne, was also bishop of Hildesheim, Liège, and Regensburg)? Just to note, I don't think relatively minor states should be in the box. Only the major powers (France and Spain on one side, the Empire, the United Provinces, and England on the other) should be in the box. But there should be a section fully detailing all the powers involved. States in the Holy Roman Empire should only be mentioned if they provided substantial support to one side or the other - otherwise every free city would have to be listed in the column with England and Holland. Also, I've added Spain as an ally of France to the box, and removed Bavaria. Spain was clearly France's most significant ally. Bavaria was important for the first few years of the war, but not nearly as important as Spain, and after 1704 was just occupied territory. john k 20:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
John, the Duchy of Mantua was mobilized and Austria occupied the Papal states. I believe Venice remained quiet. In Germany, the Electors of Cologne (and all his territories) and Bavaria were the only active allies of the French. Saxe-(Gotha?) and Mecklenburg had subsidy treaties with France, but were prevented in carrying through with their obligations. There was a revolt against Austrian occupation in Bavaria and a sizeable Bavarian force remained in exile in Flanders (5 battalions and 20-30 squadrons) from 1705 onward. All of this probably isn't essential, but sure would be nice to have. --Malbrook 20:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
We could add Bavaria to the table, if we like. I'm just concerned that that would be giving it importance over the various German states on the Allied side - notably Prussia and Hanover, which were at least as important. Including all those in "Holy Roman Empire" and Bavaria out on its own seems a bit unbalanced. Was the Pope pro-French? john k 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
John, is it really appropriate to say that "Spain" was an ally of France? After all that begs the question of which was the rightful succession. - Jmabel | Talk 00:26, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not an issue of rightful succession. It's an issue of de facto control. Philip V was the effective ruler of all of the Spanish territories when the war began. Every territory he lost was lost to conquest by the Allies. Castile never wavered in its loyalty to him. Charles III gained some support in Catalonia, but that's about it. He certainly never had any notable Spanish armies on his side, unlike his rival. john k 21:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Note that we have no problem saying Austria was on one side of the War of the Austrian Succession. The case is roughly analogous. john k 21:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

THE IMPORTANCE OF VITTORIO AMEDEO II OF SAVOY

Vittorio Amedeo II of Savoy was one of the most important main character during the War of the Spanish Succession. His victory over the French and the Spaniards in the battle of Turin (1706) was the beginning of the establishing of the Kingdom of Sardinia (1720). In 1706, short before the battle of Turin, the hero Pietro Micca saved the town during a French attack (August 29) and during the battle (September 7) the Piedmontese troops -not the Austrian troops- were the first to break through the French lines. No picture of Vittorio Amedeo II is to be found in this article about this war and no picture of the hero Pietro Micca. A shame!

The Battle of Turin is generally though of as a victory of Eugene of Savoy, who, while of the House of Savoy, was in the Austrian service. 82.124.36.126 02:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC) [Er, that was me. john k 02:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)]

This is true but just this is wrong: the importance of the Piedmontese troops is still today undervalued. This is the reason because I wrote this statement.

Mentioning that the Piedmontese were involved alongside the Austrians seems worthwhile. We should not call it a victory of Victor Amadeus II, just as we shouldn't call Blenheim a defeat for the Elector of Bavaria. john k 14:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

WHY NO OTHER THEATRES?

Why does this article (excepting a small reference in the opening paragraph to Queen Anne's War) make reference to the other peripheral theatres of the war? The reason I ask is they seem significant holes in a feature article.

I acknowledge that events in the Americas (Both North and West Indies) did not have a great impact on the main event - the fighting in the low countries - but it is still an important part of the narrative of the war as Anglo-American failure has some influence upon the peace treaty. Similarly, the dismissal of the maritime aspect of the conflict - while again a secondary aspect - its effects in the Mediterranean (gaining for Britain Minorca and the Rock and as part of a southern strategy), the British battle (again) with French guerre de course and the realisation of dominance at sea by the RN are all significant to the history of the war.

As such I'd suggest two things, first the merging of Queen Anne's War into this article as a section on the North American theatre and making mention of the West Indian fighting (I lack the time and resources to cover this aspect) and writing a section on the maritime aspects of the war focusing on the guerre de course and the Mediterranean (which, if nobody else takes up the gauntlet, I should be able to do shortly.)

I'd appreciate thoughts etc. Inane Imp 11:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag War

Okay, since there seems to be some back and forth on how the various combatants should be represented in the infobox, I figured I might start up a discussion with some preliminary thoughts.

  • I prefer the use of national flags over factional symbols. Factions are too vague a notion for me.
  • If we want to list both UK AND England:
    • Was Scotland also in the war?
    • Was Ireland also in the war
    • or just England?

-Gomm 01:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it's like they say, "no peace without Spain." Concerning the combatants:

  1. It's highly problematic to speak of "Austracists" and "Philippists" as two organized, well-drawn factions defined by contrasting ideologies. In reality, the loyalties of most Spaniards followed the fortunes of war and so were bound to change when the tide of victory turned. Almost all high officials and military personnel in the Spanish Netherlands mysteriously abandoned Philip and discovered an innate allegiance to Archduke Charles in the aftermath of Ramillies, for instance. And after Malplaquet, many (surprise, surprise!) had a change of heart and returned to the Bourbons.
  2. "Austracist" and "Philippist" mean nothing to the average Anglophone reader. Like it or not, this is an article on a major European war in an English-language encyclopedia, not a treatise on Spanish dynastic history.
  3. Combatants are typically listed in order of their contributions to the conflict, numerical or otherwise. Alphabetical listings are expedients usually reserved for long lists where such judgments would be complex and liable to lead to controversy.
  4. Even if one were to recognize these factions as coherent political entities (which, as explained above, is extremely problematic—they were morphous monarchical loyalties and nothing more), they would be far fewer in strength than many other states that are not represented, i.e. Prussia, Denmark, and Hungary.
  5. Flags alone are "not recommended," and throwing coats of arms in with flags looks ridiculous.
  6. "Austracists" and "Philippists" are fairly redundant terms since "Spain," with the Bourbon state flag, already represents 90+% of Spanish Bourbon supporters, while "Crown of Aragon" represents 70+% of Peninsular Habsburg loyalists.
  7. Onofre Bouvila is apparently fond of rummaging through WikiProject Military History and citing the very rules he's mutilating. (How nice of him to cite only part of the guideline and to torture it out of context.) Of course, anyone clicking on that link will immediately see what it actually says, namely:

    "larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding. When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article." Albrecht 02:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Putting combatants alphabetically serves no purpose and could be misleading.

We don’t need an England flag and a British flag. The British flag will suffice with a brief citation explaining the Act of Union of 1707 in the notes.

Apart from an online Spanish dictionary merely defining the terms Austriacist and Bourbonic, what credible, modern sources (book or Internet) categorise the protagonists in such a manner with regards to the conflict?

I’m inclined to agree with Albrecht although I would not put the Empire above the Maritime states in order of percedents, particularly Britain which by 1707 was dominating, by land and sea, the Anglo-Dutch partnership. Raymond Palmer 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Raymond. I was under the impression—which may be corrected—that the German states fielded considerably more troops than any other Power, being the dominant allies of the Italian and Rhine theatres and representing more than 1/3 (compared to ~1/6 British) of Marlborough's and Eugene's armies in their later campaigns. Perhaps Britain's naval and colonial preponderance nudge it ahead; I don't know. But in any event it's better to have a basic order of precedence (with Great Britain ahead; I don't mind) than to plant Bavaria ahead of France and Spain. (?!) Albrecht 20:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with Albrecht. This Spanish dynastic controversy was the cause of the war but, militarily, it was a sideshow. I also agree that a British flag with a footnot is sufficient for describing that (those?) countries. Coemgenus 21:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Certainly the German states were fielding a bigger army than the maritime powers (especially Britain) but when taking in to account other factors, the contributions of the big three even out somewhat. The biggest of these factors is of course the navy, but there is also the financial contribution to the war – Britain heavily subsidised much of the Empire as it would for decades to come.

Britain by 1702 – 40,000 rising to 58,235 + large numbers of foreign mercenaries, in 1709
Dutch by 1702 – 78,905 rising to 150,000 (includes 42,000 garrison troops)
Empire by 1702 – 90,000 rising to 140,000 in 1710
(These figures are from Lynn, Chandler and Mckay & Scott) and are only approximations.

N.A.M Roger puts the RN strength at 57,000 IIRC. (I’ll check)

So I think the main point is that the big three come first in the list – I honestly don’t care who comes first eg:1. Empire, 2: Britain, 3 Dutch

Thus, using Onofre Bouvila notes, I suggest this compromise:

War of the Spanish Succession/Archive 1
Location
{{{place}}}
Belligerents
Holy Roman Empire
Great Britain[1]
Dutch Republic
Crown of Aragon[2]
Portugal		 Kingdom of France
Kingdom of Spain
Electorate of Bavaria

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Yeah well whatever,

1. First of all put a " - - - " line or something after your contribution in the talk page, so I can know who wrote what I am reading.

2. After this, I dunno why did you create this post if I had already created another post called Discuss about the combatants, please at the begin of this talk page. I can feel some anglo efforts to ignore my purposes over here.

3. I have already discussed all this stuff for long with Albrecht to the point that he had to stop disturbing me because he saw that his arguments were being totally and systematically refuted. You can check it in my talk page.

4. Mr. Raymond Palmer, what you posted just before, and which resulted into a wrongly found agreement, is WRONG for two main reasons:

4.1. First of all, it is not updated. Another user called Joanot also contributed to the 1st reference that talks about the Austriacists and the Bourbonics and, together, we upgraded it. So it would not be like you posted it; it is like this:
Above an European War, the War of the Spanish Succession was a Spanish civil war, which confronted the peoples of the Empire, not only in the mainland but also in the colonies. In this context of internal troubles, those who decided to follow the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI received the nickname of Austriacists (because they supported the House of Austria), while those who chose Philip V of Spain were called Bourbonics (because they supported the House of Bourbon), or Philippists. In castilian, the term borbónico (Bourbonic) can be found in the DRAE online dictionary: 1. In Catalan, the terms filipista (Philippist), austriacista (Austriacist) and borbònic (Bourbonic) can be found in the Online Dictionary of IEC: 1, 2, 3. In a satirical meaning, other names were also used to define the combatants of each side. Examples of this are the Catalan terms botifler (meaning someone with inflated cheeks; it can be understood as a synonym of traitor), which was used by the Austriacists to insult the Bourbonic supporters in Catalonia, and maulet, which was used to define the Austriacist supporters in Catalonia. These terms can also be found in the Online Dictionary of IEC: 1, 2. By adding the coats of arms of the two pretenders to the throne, all those individuals who fought in one or the other side of the conflict are represented in the infobox.
And the 2nd reference is the following:
After the Acts of Union of 1707, the Kingdom of England was merged with the Kingdom of Scotland, giving birth to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
4.2. What you did is also WRONG because of this: you don't seem to understand that the 1st reference is LINKED to the fact that we must add Austriacists and Bourbonics to the Combatants' list. It is a reference to THESE TWO FACTIONS. So you cannot use what I wrote as a reference to the Crown of Aragon: IT WOULD BE WRONG! The reason why I wrote that reference was to EXPLAIN why did we add the Austriacists and Bourbonics factions to the Combatants' list: we did so, because they were wider factions, MUCH WIDER than just Crown of Aragon and Kingdom of Spain. If I added it, it was to show that there was a huge amount of combatants (hundreds of thousands, probably millions) who fought in one or the other side that cannot fit in one of these two armies. Because Kingdom of Spain included the regular forces, but there were also huge amounts of people fighting for the Bourbons in the territories controlled by the Austriacists: and these people are the ones that fit into the Bourbonics faction of the Combatants' list. In the same way, there were hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of people from the rest of the Spanish Empire that WERE NOT LIVING IN THE CROWN OF ARAGON but fought for the Austriacists. And these ones, are the ones who fit in the faction Austriacists faction of the Combatants' list.
Do you understand it now? I think you were not trying to upgrade the article but just to stop this discussion. Because if you had tryed to upgrade the article, then you would understand that the reference I wrote is linked to the addition of the Austriacist and Bourbonic factions in the Combatants' list. Otherwise, it is pointless.
And now some smart anglo will say: Oh dear! Millions of people? What is this guy saying?. Have you ever heard about a CIVIL WAR?
The fact most of you live so much distant to this conflict does not mean that what the descendants of those who lived it in first person are not right. I mean, as all what you know about this conflict comes from your anglo history books, you have a strongly partial point of view of the situation, so I don't understand why do you bother when other people come with a different and true point of view and try to fix the things.

5. Finally, I'm not going to discuss anymore with that subject called Albrecht, but I'd like to say that what he is saying strongly violates WP:NPV. I mean, first of all, the amount of combatants that contributed to the conflict is quite relative, because it depends on the source you obtain it. In addition, you must think that it was a civil war, so it weren't just armies who fought, but also individuals (back to the same point: Austriacists and Bourbonics MUST be included). Finally, the fact that many people changed of faction, first going with the Bourbons and then with the Austriacists and all that trash, please, I don't want to be rude but shut up, you are offending many people who died in the conflict. Go see the monuments to the dead in Barcelona, for example. But bah, I bet you haven't even been in Europe, lol.

Onofre Bouvila 17:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ After the Acts of Union of 1707, the Kingdom of England was merged with the Kingdom of Scotland, giving birth to the Kingdom of Great Britain.
  2. ^ Above a European War, the War of the Spanish Succession was a Spanish civil war, which confronted the peoples of the Empire, not only in the mainland but also in the colonies. In this context of internal troubles, those who decided to follow the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI received the nickname of Austriacists (because they supported the House of Austria), while those who chose Philip V of Spain were called Bourbonics (because they supported the House of Bourbon), or Philippists.

Raymond Palmer 23:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A thing of beauty!! -Gomm 23:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Perfect. (France and Spain should link to the countries and not the "ancien regimes," though) Albrecht 00:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree: very nice layout. Coemgenus 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I do not agree. First of all I wrote this comment and it is updated, so check the new version. And then, they should not link to the actual countries because hello? Spain was an Empire and now it's a country. The fact Canada has always been Canada doesn't mean that other countries haven't been different things, right, mr. Albrecht? Onofre Bouvila 17:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't know, I thought Raymond Palmer's compromise was pretty decent. I'd say we should keep it NOTWITHSTANDING ANY BOLD FACE COMMENTS TO THE CONTRARY. Coemgenus 18:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
No, Mr. Bouvila, wrong. Yet again. Spain had an empire, Bouvila, and France had an ancien regime. In the 18th century Spain was a kingdom and had a Bourbon monarch. Today, Spain is a kingdom and has...a Bourbon monarch. Il'est observateur, lui. And I'm afraid I don't know what you mean when you say that "Canada has always been Canada," nor do I care enough to correct you. You've made it abundantly clear already that you're devoted to a peculiar choice of historical literature. (crack open Chapter 3, where the Mad Hatter "totally and systematically refutes my arguments." It's a riot.) Nice try, muchacho, hello?, and adios. Albrecht 19:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, Discussion does not seem to have worked. -Gomm 00:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Linking Spain to the today's article for Spain is just stupid if we have an article called Spanish Empire. Today, Spain is the Peninsular Spain + Balearic Islands + Canary Islands + Ceuta + Melilla + Plazas de Soberanía. Spain 300 years ago was all what I said before PLUS a half of the world. The fact it was called Kingdom like today doesn't mean anything. It was a different thing. You are just ridiculous. In addition, you have just edited again the article and you posted the reference that you had been removing for weeks, since I wrote it!!. And now you add this reference talking about Bourbonics and Austriacists, but you don't even write the one that has the links to the Online Dictionaries, you add an older version, which is quite pointless if we have a new one, in which users like Joanot and others collaborated. And first you add the reference next to Crown of Aragon and then you add it next to Kingdom of Spain. You don't follow any guideline, you just try to remove since the begin my contribution to this article. And you insult me, you are ridiculous.
All in all, if you (plural) read what I said, you will understand the meaning of the famous first reference, and you will understand that it is pointless to put it next to the Crown of Aragon or the Kingdom of Spain or whatever. I'll explain it again: it is the purpose of the famous first reference to justify the addition to the infobox of the Austriacist and Bourbonic factions. That is why it is pointless to add the reference, without adding them to the combatants' list!!! Like WP:MH/MCI says,
this is most commonly the countries whose forces took part in the conflict; however, larger groups (such as alliances or international organizations) or smaller ones (such as particular units, formations, or groups) may be indicated if doing so improves reader understanding
And as I've explained, as it was a civil war, it is necessary for the understanding of the article to add those factions. Then you say: "omfg, but for the average anglo reader those factions mean nothing". Well, that's why I made the reference, to clarify your ignorance.
You get it?
Well, I guess you've understood all the whole thing, and now you understand why the reference is linked, irremediably, to the addition of the Bourbonic and Austriacist factions to the combatants' list. Connecting my reference to the Crown of Aragon, to the Kingdom of Spain, or whatever, implicates (1) the fact that you haven't understood the meaning of the reference, and (2) the mutilation of the article, adding senseless information (senseless because it is senseless if the factions are mentioned nowhere).
But the problem here is that that guy has coat-of-arms-phobia.
Onofre Bouvila 00:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Your persistent and childish manner and are now becoming a niusance.
Now if any one has any doubts about this fellow’s knowledge on the subject, and whether or not his contributions are beneficial, take a look at his last edit on the Battle of Almanza. This is worse than vandalism because the mistake he made, a very important mistake, will not be picked up by a casual editor.
Now have a look at the infobox he added to the Siege of Barcelona. His incompetence personifies everything that is bad about Wikipedia. Raymond Palmer 17:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(I'm going to re-start this on the left <---)

Ok, this is getting ridiculous. This is supposed to be an historical article, not a forum for misplaced nationalism. Seriously, start a blog.

I'd suggest a poll on the subject, but I don't think you-know-who would abide by it. Can anyone think some other method of dispute resolution might work? Asking a thid party, perhaps?

Raymond: you're right, I almost didn't notice the problem on those Alamanza edits. Thankfully, it's been fixed. Coemgenus 19:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know how to fix that mess on the Siege of Barcelona infobox? I don't know nearly enough about either the war in Spain or how wiki software works. Martin McCann 19:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
There is not much point fixing it if it is just going to get undone. -Gomm 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
(1)Sorry Raymond Palmer, but what are you talking about? I copied the warbox for the Siege of Barcelona from the Spanish article. So what are you talking about? You can check the Spanish article yourself: [1]. Tell me what's wrong about adding a warbox to the siege, that in addition, can be found in another version of the wikipedia.
(2)About the Battle of Almanza, all I did was to add the factions Austriacists and Bourbonics. Those factions are in the Spanish and Catalan articles, you can check them yourself [2], [3]. And I did that months ago. Oh, and please, tell me which historical mistake did I made, which very important mistake I made.
(3)What are you talking about vandalism? Adding two coats of arms in the Battle of Almanza article (I did this like two months ago and no one had said anything until now) and adding a warbox that I got from the Spanish version of the article Siege of Barcelona is vandalism? What mess are u talking about?
If you don't want I'm not going to add the thing about the Austriacists and Bourbonics, but at least don't manipulate the reference I wrote. Albrecht keeps removing my contribution but partially re-utilizating the reference I wrote and linking it to Crown of Aragon and Kingdom of Spain, which is something I don't really understand.
Onofre Bouvila 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
1) The Siege of Barcelona infobox now contains a combination of information from that Siege and the the Battle of Almansa, so it's impossible to tell which information is accurate.
2) The Battle of Almansa infobox switched the "combatants" round so you had Berwick (a Marshal of France) commanding the allied forces.
3) As mentioned above the information in the Siege of Barcelona infobox is a combination of that siege and the Battle of Almansa (notably the date, place, picture caption and commanders are copied from the battle).
4) As has been mention above repeatedly, the Spanish factions are incidental to the war as a whole, particularly since the Austriacists are represented by the Crown of Aragon and the Bourbonics by Spain. The physical locations of the various groups are irrelevant - their allegiance is represented.
Martin McCann 23:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok lol, I have changed the infobox of the Siege of Barcelona. The mistake in the Battle of Almanza was just that, a mistake, I think it's pretty obvious.
Apart of this; I've explained for too long why do I want to add the Austriacist and Bourbonic factions, and I've explained that it fits with the military project guidelines, so I don't understand why does Albrecht keep removing it. You haven't refuted my arguments!!! Has anybody read all waht I said?
And why do you keep posting an old version of the reference that I wrote???
First of all, I've explained that this reference talks about the Bourbonic and the Austriacist factions. CAN ANYONE JUSTIFY WHY ARE YOU ADDING THIS REFRENCE WITHOUT MENTIONING THE AUSTRIACIST AND BOURBONIC FACTIONS??? You are just mutilating what I wrote, and no one has quoted my arguments and refuted them one by one, so this is just a question of strenght.
I don't see why I should not change it again.
You take the work I did in the combatants list, mutilate it, and then post it again. Instead of regonising that some of the stuff that I added is quite useful, like the reference to the great britain, etc, but nah, u just remove it all and leave it incomplete so it makes no sense. But the fact is to remove the coats of arms, that's the important, right?
Oh, and by the way, linking France and Spain to the actual countries is extremely stupid. You put "electorate of bavaria" and not "bavaria". You put "holy roman empire" and not "germany". You put "crown of aragon" and not "autonomous community of aragon". So why Spain is linking to what is today? if before it was a half of the world? All this is senseless. But here no1 discusses anything. People just edits edits and edits. So I'll do the same.
Onofre Bouvila 00:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Combatants

It's completely misleading to pretend that the two factions in Spain are on the same level as combatants. The "Bourbonics", or whatever you want to call them, actually controlled the government of Spain. The "Austriacists" never controlled any territory of their own - they were basically just a puppet faction of the allies, and only had any power in areas under allied military control. Furthermore, in Castile, which was the heart of the Spanish monarchy, there was never any noticeable support for an "Austriacist" faction, and the struggle was generally seen by elite circles in Castile, at least, as a struggle for the integrity of the Spanish Empire against foreign invaders. The current table implies an equality between the two sides that didn't really exist. The whole of Spain's military and naval power was at the service of France. The forces supporting Charles of Austria were largely creatures of the allies. john k 20:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not to deny, I would add, that there was some genuine anti-Bourbon (or, at least, anti-Castilian) sentiment in the Aragonese lands, but I am largely unaware of this sentiment actually projecting force in any considerable way. So far as Spain fought in the war, it fought on the French side. john k 20:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

picture fight?

I prefer the non-spanish one (just by visual appeal). -Gomm 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

No contest. Just ask you-know-who. Albrecht 01:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see you lose your time reading my user page.
Well, about the picture debate, I think it's much more representative to put the Siege of Barcelona picture because of various reasons:
  1. We're talking about the War of the Spanish Succession, which was a war fought to decide who was going to reign in Spain. So to reflect the reality, this country, Spain, should be the centre of the attention. The battle of the September 11 of 1714, which was fought during the Siege of Barcelona, occurred in Spain, so it fits very well in the infobox of the article.
  2. The Siege of Barcelona was also the last great battle of the War of the Spanish Succession: with the Catalan defeat in this battle, the Austriacist hope to reach the Spanish throne was definately lost. So in some way, it represents the end of the war, the end of the Austriacist aspirations in Spain.
  3. This battle marked the end of the Austriacist age in Spain, and the beginning of the Bourbonic age, which still exists nowadays. It was an crucial point in the History of Spain, and remember we are talking about the War of the Spanish Succession.
  4. It also marked a crucial point in the History of Catalonia, and in all the Catalan Countries, because due to the Catalan support to the House of Austria, Philip V of Spain promulgated the Nueva Planta decrees.
  5. And I could find a thousand more of arguments to put this battle in the portrait of the infobox, instead of the Battle of Denain. But well, it's almost impossible to do this kind of totally obvious and rational changes when legions of anglos are constantly flying over the article. The anglocentrism here is obvious. But come on, I encourage you to find such good reasons to put the Battle of Denain in the portrait of the infobox instead of the Siege of Barcelona. Since then, I may keep changing it, like you do.
Onofre Bouvila 15:52, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
You've caught on, of course, Bouvila: This article is being cynically manipulated by unreformed anglo-imperialists. Didn't you know when you signed up that Wikipedia is part of the British Empire, big guy? It's all part of the plan, right?. Albrecht 16:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Anglos on the English Wikipedia? Shocking. But seriously, even the Catalan version of this article relegates that picture (or a part of it) to the bottom of the article and the Spanish version just has a small black and white image about the Siege. Are those sites overrun by Anglos, too? The Denain picture is more representative of the war as a whole. It may have been about the Spanish succession, and barcelona may be a Spanish city, but most of the war was outside Spain. Coemgenus 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I find the anglocentric accusation a litttle strange, the english participation in the Battle of Denain was somewhat limited (actually not a single soldier or penny). Carl Logan 16:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
And the only qualifiers I'm aware of when selecting one picture over another for the Infobox are that it be a) reasonably representative of the fighting as a whole, and b) aesthetically/artistically compelling. Alaux's painting destroys Barcelona on both counts, although outraged ultra-nationalists can apparently delude themselves otherwise. Albrecht 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Haha that's quite cool, yeah, I post something and the army of anglo-wikipedians come here. Albrecht, Carl Logan, Coemgenus... hey, where is Palmer? The fact you are more doesn't mean you are right. You haven't provided a single argument why the actual painting is more representative than the siege of Barcelona. And the fact that the picture appears at the bottom of the Spanish and Catalan articles is just because it happened at the final stage of the war, and thus it's placed at the end of the article. Nowadays no one remembers the Battle of Denain, because it represented nothing, just another battle among others, while the Siege of Barcelona is still remembered. You know, Wikipedia is not the truth. I just try to fix the things here, but the fact that all you with your minds create this anglo illusion of the truth, doesn't make the wikipedia veritable. Onofre Bouvila 18:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Anglo-wikipedian? That's a new one on me. If you mean that I am a native speaker of the English language, you are correct, but so are most users on the English Wikipedia. If you mean that I am a subject of Queen Elizabeth, a quick glance at my userpage will imform you that I am an American of non-English extraction. Further, as Carl Logan pointed out above, neither of the battles in question here involved Englishmen, so what languages I speak is irrelevant. I'd not bother with the ad hominem attacks if I were you. And you should be careful about erasing talkpages. Whoever put that there might not appreciate it. Coemgenus 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
He might have a point that Denain, while it restored a degree of French initiative in the war, is rarely remembered. For that reason, Blenheim would probably be a better choice, as it decisively changed the course of the war in the decisive theatre on the French easter frontier, and is probably the battle from the war that most people have heard of. Martin McCann 20:50, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Surely the primary criterion for an image should be that it is a good image that usefully illustrates the article, not that it depicts the most important battle. Beyond that, I'll just say that the war was not primarily fought over who would be king of Spain, which is why most of the fighting took place outside Spain. It was fought over who would control the Spanish monarchy, and the territories that the allies were most concerned about were certainly not those in the Iberian peninsula, but rather the Spanish possessions in Italy and the Low Countries. Which was, not incidentally, where most of the fighting occurred. john k 23:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Tonight's edit

I am restauring "(Spain)" next to Crown of Aragon, and I am doing so even despite user Onofre Bouvila's so called order in his summary edit: DON'T ADD the stupid "Spain" label next to Crown of Aragon

First of all, I wanted to remind this user to check his manners and understand that, by essence, wikipedia is and will be open to changes and that no one is entitled to tell anybody else what to do: no one has entitled this user as the expert in the War of the Spanish Succession over the rest of users, right?. So, in the first place, the advice for newcomers is: "try to take it easy" and understand that the fact that we are discussing a war here doesn't turn anyone into a Commander who can order the rest of users.

Also, qualifying other user's contributions as "stupid" will not add any force to anyone's reasons: it actually goes exactly the other way.

Now, the reason why I add this "label" is quite simple: the Crown of Aragon as such had ceased to exist roughly 200 years before this war started. By this time, there were not such a thing as Crown of Aragon anymore, not for the previous 200 years. What did exist were the realms which used to make the Crown of Aragon, but not the Crown itself.

Even though it is slightly misleading as it is, still, I have no problem in having the Crown of Aragon listed there as a combatant, because it does make sense if we look at the origin of the troops provided by each pretender but, if it only reads "Crown of Aragon" by itself in the same fashion as "Dutch Republic", "Portugal" and the rest of countries, it gives the impression that it was one more independent combatant joining the fight, which was not.

The less than polite user said in another edit summary regarding this that we do not add "Germany" next to Electorate of Bavaria: of course we don't, because Germany did not exist at the time. But Spain did, and it included the Crown of Aragon as a part of it.

The very foot note which is longer than thousands of articles makes it clear: it was a civil war within Spain, so what could be the problem in clarify that the Crown of Aragon fought as a part of Spain? I just can't see it.

p.s. besides all the above, this would be worth it just because it makes the Portugal coat of arms appear right next to "Portugal", as it should.

Mountolive | Talk 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Crown of Aragon did in fact still exist constitutionally, although of course it exercised no sovereign power. The current arrangement was arrived at to accommodate the aforementioned user who wanted to stress the war's Spanish character; whenever we attempt compromises of this kind, the result is bound to be slightly imperfect. However, alternatives such as "Catalonia" or "Habsburg Spain" are equally frought with problems. Albrecht 03:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds really strange to have "Spain" in both sides. Besides it, in these days "Spain" (often Las Españas) had a geographic sense, designing the place more than a supposed nation, not in the current meaning of "nation". The war was between Crowns, you can't say it was a civil war in the modern meaning of the word. So I suggest to eliminate these strange "Spain" brackets and labels, in order to clarify it. --Joan sense nick 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The often abused reasoning that Spain had a geographical sense back in the time, while it is correct until sometime through the 16th century (for some even the early 17th century) it shouldn't be extended to the early 18th century, which is when this war takes place. By this time the Kingdom of Spain was existing more than 200 years and, besides, it had gained great preeminence worldwide, which indeed fostered the dawn of "Spain" as the name of the country which today lies in the Iberian Peninsula, all of it.
But, in any case, the war was not between the crowns, because, once again, the Crown of Aragon couldn't be a contender by itself, because it wasn't any sovereign subject whatsoever anymore and, obviously, had no king whatsoever. Obviously, one pretender in the Spanish war of Succession gained most of his supports in territories belonging to the former Crown of Aragon, which, in turn, had become territories of the Kingdom of Spain.
As for what is said about civil wars, it obviously couldn't be a civil war in the modern sense because, well, now is now and then, that was the 18th century. But, international dimension aside, it got very close, for all what these people strived for was for getting their preferred pretender taking the throne in Madrid.
The "Spain" bracket is not "strange". It is actually quite normal. And it actually comes to clarify things, for it only indicates that the Crown of Aragon was not a foreign contender as the rest of the combatants listed (Portugal, Dutch Republic, France and so on...)
After this insistence in removing the Spain bracket, it may well be that what is confusing is the Crown of Aragon banner as a separated thing from the Kingdom of Spain. Don't forget that this had no factuality back in the day when this happened and we are only using it as a means of simplification, but, if it keeps arising this confusion again and again, I am not sure anymore whether it should be removed or else. Mountolive | Talk 04:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I still think it's just pointless to add the label "(Spain)" next to the Crown of Aragon. You've proved enough knowledge about this issue by saying that the Crown did not exist, when, indeed, it did exist. The addition of the label "(Spain)" next to the Crown of Aragon does not clarify anything; I mean, it's obvious it was a part of Spain: you can read it in the footnote, and you can also read it by just clicking the Crown of Aragon link and reading a bit the article, or watching the map, it's very obvious. Adding the label "(Spain)" seems to me just an ultra Spanish nationalist effort to reiterate the possession of Spain over the Crown of Aragon; people knows it was so, but, and what? By those times I can assure you that the King of Spain or whatever was Philip V didn't rule the Crown of Aragon, so instead that before and after the war, the Crown of Aragon was found in the Spanish national territory, during the war it was not under the rule of the "Kingdom of Spain" faction that appears in the infobox, so it's not appropiate to add "Spain" there. If you want you can add "Iberian Peninsula" or so, to clarify the situation of the territory. But it wasn't "Spain". In fact, both factions were "Spain". The guys from the Crown of Aragon didn't fight for the Crown of Aragon, they fought for a Spanish king, in fact many people fought for him, inside and outside the Crown of Aragon, in all the continental Spain. And at the other side, it wasn't the "spanish army" itself, it wasn't the "kingdom of Spain", u know, it was the Spanish supporters of Philip V: that's why I wanted to add Austriacists and Bourbonics, because it was a civil war. But people, specially in this wikipedia, tends to simply too much the things. Adding the label "(Spain)" confuses the reader, since it's just the same name as the combatant of the opposite faction (Spain). It was a civil war between Las Españas as said above. In fact, I'm not sure at all that by those times the terms were raised in terms of "Spain" vs. "Crown of Aragon". I think it was more "Bourbonics" against "Austriacists", or "Castilian troops" against "Catalans" or "Valencians" or so... but well, people doesn't seem to care about all these details and do the things like if it was player 1 vs. player 2, when it's quite more complicate.
People should make more efforts to understand that it was a war among Las Españas, and things were not so simple
All in all, adding the label "(Spain)" is not appropiate, and it ruins the layout of the infobox. Onofre Bouvila 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

If the war (in the old Crown of Aragon teritories) was only a civil war between two parties, how can you explain the extremely strong repression suffered after the war by the cities of Barcelona or Xàtiva, instead of a repression of Austriacist individuals? --Joan sense nick 22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think is obvious that just civil wars (just?) are usually the harshest so that would explain the reprisals after the war. Because civil wars are, actually particularly nasty.
This said, regarding the acts of reprisal you mention, there were dozens in the contemporary history if Europe. Mountolive | Talk 02:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you provide some of these exemples (with no regional engagement, repressing the hole population of a zone after a war)?--Joan sense nick 17:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't have with me the Book of Burnt Cities in Wartime, nor I am not sure whether I want to bother looking for this anyway, since I'm guessing it would take you less than a minute to reply saying that it was not like the Xàtiva's burning for this or that reason... Mountolive | Talk 17:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Having seen Onofre's posts above, I am now working with the hypothesis that he is quite smarter than the average populace and, in this particular case, more knowledgeable in War of Spanish Succession topics than most of the people around here. This is just a working hypothesis though (which explains his self righteous and at times arrogant style).

Still, because this article is not read only in Catalunya (Onofre, just as a reminder: this is not ca:wiki) there is a wider, (and less educated than you, for sure), audience which may end up misled if they read Portugal, Dutch Republic, England, Crown of Aragon etc in one side of the table, and then, in the other side of the table, Spain, like if the Crown of Aragon was another foreign contender. I know your IQ and your experience in this topic doesn't need this, but, this is an encyclopaedia open for everyone. That is why I am adding the clear up bracket.

Also, I am going to reduce the footnote. I know you are particularly proud of your redaction there: you made a good job indeed. But it is very long and some trimming won't hurt it so bad, don't worry. If I was you, I would print the old version of the article, including the mega-note and without the Spain bracket and then make a poster to display in your bedroom (you can make a big notice in CAPITAL LETTERS for your mom in order NOT to remove it...because you don't have a girlfriend, do you? prone to vent geniouses are often misunderstood...). Besides, people tend not to read 18 lines footnotes so, if you really like it, you'd better make it look a bit more "sexy"...I mean the footnote, of course.

By the way, how can you say that it ruins the layout of the table? why? do you think that, as it was before, having Portugal's coat of arms to the right and, one line below and to the left, the word "Portugal"...do you think that was a nicer appearance of the table? Well, I don't. Mountolive | Talk 02:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is not that, through trying to add the Austriacists and Bourbonic factions, etc, I am centering very much in a small part of what the war was, while I am forgotting the most important factions. It's just that I want to mention it, because it was as much or maybe more important than other factions, and the article does not talk about it. Just because we are in the English wikipedia does not mean that this article must have a British point of view. Other realities such as what happened in Spain should be explained, and this means explaining that it was a civil war, explaining that it was not a war among states but among territories, that it was a war for the pretenders, etc, and that everything was much more complicated than that.
Ignoring the whole faction of the Spanish Habsburgs just because some contributors think that they were not an important faction because they have read it somewhere (otherwise I don't understand which arguments do they have to judge this) // just because adding coats of arms with flags does not fit with their guidelines (the article about this war is not of the property of the military history project) // just because it would be confusing in the infobox to add "Spain" in one side and "a part of Spain" in the other side => are not valid arguments to ignore a part of the History.
This other vision of the conflict is what I was trying to introduce in the article through the infobox, and it doesn't mean giving a biased or nationalistic point of view nor anything so, it is just explaining an important part of the facts, of the history, that is not even mentioned in the article.
About the understandability of the infobox, there is no problem if the combatants list is correctly stated and explained and referenced. It can be easily understood.
About the footnote, there's no need to reduce it, because directly it is missplaced there. The footnote was made to extensively explain the factions of Austriacists and Bourbonics, to explain that it was a civil war, to solve this "confusion" that you think that adding "such complicated factions" would carry. But when the simplist point of view prevailed, and these factions were definately removed, the note became isolated and out of place. Now, it is quite pointless to keep it since the existence of these two factions has been banned from the article (how can real facts be banned from an "encyclopedic" article just because some contributors think these facts are irrelevant?)
Finally, about the other trash that you vomited, just to say that I already suspected that you were a vulture and a mentally retarded person, but your words just confirmed my suspicion ;)
Oh, and adding the stupid label of "(Spain)" next to the Crown of Aragon, did ruin the layout of the table. Onofre Bouvila 21:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Is it really worth the pain?

If we were not to please Catalan nationalists, we would not display the Crown of Aragon as one more combatant, because:

1) By that time, the Crown of Aragon was not an international subject anymore: it had ceased being so 200 years before. There was not a single common institution remaining. But the component realms did exist, as a part of the Spanish kingdom.

2) The combatants in the Crown of Aragon territories were not to revive it, it was not in their program to secede: they just wanted their preferred pretender in Madrid over the other one.

I wonder if this fictional combatants list (with the back then already dead and gone Crown of Aragon revived and even forced to fight...poor one) is really necessary... Mountolive | Talk 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

1)I partially agree, but there was not a Spanish kingdom, there were Spanish kingdoms. The current Kingdom of Spain began after this war.
2) They supported Charles because he promised to respect the Catalan constitutions. --Joan sense nick 17:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Since we look at these things from different perspectives, I appreciate your -even partial- agreement. As for the Spanish kingdoms...well, it's a tricky question with, I guess, reasons for both sides. You may be partially ;) right but, for example, I seem to recall that Philip II title (and so I'm guessing all the kings at least after him, and probably before) was Rex Hispaniae. My latin is rusty indeed and I am citing by memory anyway, but this is King of Spain, isn't it?
I guess both, examples of Kingdom of Spain and Kingdoms of Spain, exist anyway.
Yes, they did supported Charles because he promised allegiance to the Catalan constitutions and the Valencian Furs but that leaves intact my 2) point anyway, doesn't it? Mountolive | Talk 18:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Rex Hispaniae being King of the Spains (in a geographic/cultural sense, as opposed to the statist, absolutist "Kingdom of Spain" introduced by the Bourbons), a concept inherited from the Leónese and which, incidentally, included Portugal (Portuguese people only began referring to themselves as "Portuguese" instead of "Spanish" when Philip IV refused to stop using the title "Rex Hispaniae" after the Restoration—think of it as the 17th century's equivalent of Freedom fries ;) ). Albrecht 20:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
It is clear that Latin is a dead tongue ;)... Hispaniae Rex means, on the contrary, "King of Spain", while Hispaniarvm Rex means "King of the Spains" (Being the latter (HISPAN(iarum). REX) the way Austrian spanish kings are described in The Royal Pantheon of El Escorial), while the only Emperor among them, Charles I of Spain is described as "Carolus V. IMP(erator).ETREX" (Charles V. Emperor and King) as shown here [[4]]). MauriceXXVII (AKA. "Mauricius Vicesimus-Septimus Gallus Aquitaniae" 21:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look here: [[5]]. In these coins, you can read Philippus Hispaniarum Rex 1733, and Carolus Hispaniarum Rex 1794. Hispaniarum Rex: King of the Spains. This is not a personal opinion, it's history. --Joan sense nick 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said, Hispaniae means singular, Hispaniarum means plural. Your point is? --Maurice27 22:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So the Bourbons continued to use plural "Spains"? Albrecht 22:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, we may well find examples for both, "Spain" and "Spains" so this is an inconclusive debate.

I would like not to miss the point my first post here, which is whether the Crown of Aragon as such a Crown was a combatant in this war. I think it obviously wasnt as such a Crown of Aragon but peoples from the kingdoms which belonged to the former Crown of Aragon, they were indeed.

The table, as it is now, reads something else.Mountolive | Talk 22:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disagrees with you; the question is whether there's a way to be both accurate and expedient. As a balancing act (if we want to represent the Catalans, as some users insist), I think Crown of Aragon works pretty well. But the best solution would be to remove it entirely (the Catalan supporters would be on firmer ground if they also added nations like Prussia and Hungary, which fielded far more troops). Unfortunately, it seems that ever since Onofre Bouvila began editing the article we've been tortured into making awkward compromises for fear of inciting THE FRIGHTFUL WRATH OF BOLDED, MISSPPELED CAPS. Albrecht 23:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
:D
Well, first of all you all guys have to excuse the Spanish editors (that include, as of April 2007, Onofre Bouvila) because we are taught this war as a mostly Spanish event, while it is clear here that it also had a very important European leg. Of course the right attitude would be to open our minds to this further dimension of the conflict, instead of whining (disrepectfully) about the "anglos" whatsoever and impose the Catalan vision instead. So, on behalf of the unapologetic editor, sorry about that.
I'm not sure whether the article, as it is now, would make it as a featured one. I know that it has deteriorated lately, and I am not sure whether I am partially responsible trying to fix some of the most flagrant parts.
Still, instead of making awkward compromises, why don't the established editors of the pre-Onofre Bouvila era, make it right again? The WRATH OF BOLDED, MISSPELLED CAPS is certainly terrible but, if you all guys get toghether, you should prevail.... Mountolive | Talk 00:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


Yes, the Bourbons continued to use plural Spains, even Joseph Bonaparte in ... 1810!!. [[6]]. Of course, we may well find examples for both, "Spain" and "Spains" and this is an inconclusive an boring debate, but note that these official coins are not "examples" based on biased opinions.

"awkward"?... in spite of poor English misspelling, try to help making better this universal encyclopedia is part of the spirit of WP since its beginning, "a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit". --Joan sense nick 02:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I much agree with Albrecht. It'd be better to remove the pro-Habsburg Spanish entirely. john k 02:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Crown of Aragon" faction was in the article before I came, if you are saying that for me. I already said somewhere in this talk page that the Crown of Aragon is not an appropiate combatant. In fact the flags for the Austriacists from Barcelona for example, were more likely the flag of Santa Eulàlia or the Saint George cross. I said that the appropiate thing would be to group both sides of the conflict in Spain into two factions (Austriacists and Bourbonics, or however you wanna call them). But since I was banned to introduce these two factions in the infobox and in the article (even the reference I wrote to explain this was removed) I thought that adding the Crown of Aragon would be "a lesser evil" and at least we would give credit to the Austriacists from Spain, because otherwise they would not be mentioned anywhere, and that's pretty sad since they fought from the beginnings to much after the war ended (through guerrillas in many places of Spain), and they were hundreds of thousands (instead maybe they didn't show up a great number of regular forces in the battles). Trying to explain all these issues is not being nationalist, but on the contrary: the fact of living in a different place gives a different point of view that I tryed to introduce to the article. But here only the anglo point of view is admitted. Even the actual flags are wrong. As has been proved over here, according to some given sources, the Cruz de Borgoña was the flag used by the Spanish Army, and in the article there is a different flag. In addition, these people accepted to have the Crown of Aragon in the combatants list as a "lesser evil", something that I already said and now you are realizing that is wrong, just to prevent the introduction of new concepts like the Austriacist and Bourbonic sides, just because they didn't match the simple point of view of adding flags instead of coats of arms, like if this was a war among states instead of a war for the pretenders, which is what it was.
And then we have brilliant administrators like "john k" saying that the pro-Habsburg Spain should be entirely removed from the article. Entirely removing the pro habsburg Spain!!! But where did you learn history, honestly? How many people they were??? Absolutely many more than any other force that fought the conflict. It was a civil war! But all this is being ignored in the article. This is not encyclopedic. This is like the Council of Nicea: the truth here is stated according to what a bunch of guys who know nothing about History and who are guided by some books like if they were the bible say, and who have never been in the place of the facts and don't know anything about other realities that are strange to them. It's like if here the war was fought only by the Britons and the French. All this is insane; ignoring the history and the given sources just to make prevail your point of view. So three or four guys come here, say that something did not happen, decide to ignore a complete part of the history, an admin comes here, gives them the blessing, and years of history are banned from the article. It's just amazing. Stuff like this is why the wikipedia will always suck; two or three make a lobby to monopolize an article and the truth is sold. Onofre Bouvila 20:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Austriacists Vs. Bourbonics

This war was not about the Crown of Aragon against Spain, nor the Crown of Aragon againts Phillip V. Just mentioning the Crown of Aragon as a beligerant side is just PLAIN FALSE. Period!

"As well as being a European War, the War of the Spanish Succession was also a Spanish civil war, which confronted the peoples of the Empire, not only in the mainland but also in the colonies. In this situation of internal troubles, those who decided to follow the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI received the nickname of Austriacists (because they supported the House of Austria), while those who chose Philippe of Anjou were called Bourbonics (because they supported the House of Bourbon)".

Flags explanation (Sorry, only in spanish):

  • Bourbonics: "Orden de 28 de febrero de 1707: ...y es mi voluntad que cada cuerpo traiga la bandera Coronela blanca, con la Cruz de Borgoña, según estilo de mis tropas a que he mandado añadir dos castillos y dos leones, repartidos en los cuatro blancos, y cuatro coronas que cierran las puntas en las aspas: y las otras banderas serán de tafetán, de los colores principales que tuvieren las armas de la provincia o ciudad del nombre que yo señalo al Regimiento, en el cual siempre que tenga más de un batallón, las banderas de los demás batallones que tuviere serán de esta forma, pues no puede haber mas que una Coronela, que deberá estar siempre en el primer batallón, que es donde ha de estar siempre esta compañía. Todo lo cual mando al referido Conde de Aguilar, lo haga ejecutar y observar, como director general de la Infantería, y..." (See [[7]] to look at the flag)
  • Austriacists: "...que todos los Estandartes Coroneles hayan de ser blancos, con la imagen de Nuestra Señora de la Conzepcion (sic) Nuestra Abogada, y las otras Banderas, ô, Estandartes hayan de ser de el Color que gustare el Coronel y assimismo las mantillas de los timbales."(see [[8]])


So, this mean that neither the bourbonic spanish flag nor the senyera made appeareance in this war, but rather the Bourgogne Cross and the Lady's Immaculate Conception. Therefore, having this flag: fighting against this other: (which BTW was also the national flag in the crown of aragon's territories), is false, unaccurate and misleading.

The Spanish War of Sucession was a Civil War, not between territories, but between pretenders to the throne and their supporters. Therefore, everyone is entitled to use the correct emblems.

As a surprising fact, for once, the spanish wikipedia is an example to the english one (see [[9]]), because the royal emblems (or coat of arms) are used to described the opposed sides in this war. As I said before, Austriacists and Bourbonics is the way to describe them. Therefore, among the spanish troops, those HAVE TO BE the emblems:

  • is to be used for Austriacists
  • is to be used for Bourbonics


If only, for one time, history prevailed over politics... --Maurice27 19:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a solution to the problem described in the above post; besides, it also has the advantage that is sourced with original texts.
It would be interesting to see other people's opinion, specially from anywhere except Spain, to add a more clear view. Mountolive | Talk 23:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

God, please no. The idea that the war was between "Austriacists" and "Bourbonics" is pressing a ridiculous POV, in that it equalizes the two sides, when in fact Philip V actually controlled Spain before the war, and all territories he lost were lost largely as a result of conquest by foreign armies, not due to rebellion and civil war, which was more a result of foreign invasion. Listing the "Austriacists" is like listing the Japanese puppet regime in China during World War II as a power on the Axis side. john k 02:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the "Austracists" vs. "Bourbonics" is probably a Spanish historiography bias. We are indeed told the story pretty much like that, specially in the former Crown of Aragon territories like the one I come from myself.
I was telling Albrecht that you guys should take over this article back again to the high standards that made it a featured article before it was invaded by Bouvila and his reverse sequels (such as myself).
indeed, all the Spanish folks we are bringing to this article too much passion and little clear up (no jokes on our prone-to-that temper, because we can also be ok people in other articles ;).
again, you guys should, if only as an experiment, give a thorough review to the article, so that us Spaniards (Catalan included as of April 2007) may get a more neutral vision of the whole thing (for example, after reading your interesting post above, I kinda changed my mind on Austracists/Bourbonics), while making a bit of "external advice", but only a bit (otherwise we're in the same situation)


But, if you guys are to do that, then you have to do it and you have to do it good: you just can't back up at the sight of the first bolded&misspelled caps for the sake of achieving some consensus with someone who won't settle until he thinks that he has achieved enough of his agenda... So it's up to you. Mountolive | Talk 03:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


This same month, the magazine "La Aventura de la Historia, #102" talks about the 3rd centenary of the Battle of Almansa. Inside, I found a map which I scanned for you to see: ([[10]]). It clearly states that:

  • The royal emblems are used to describe the opposed armies
  • Austriscists and Bourbonics are used to name the opposed armies

For sure, both armies did not use this royal emblems in battle. Spanish troops, as I stated before, used the Cross of Burgundy Flag and the Lady's Immaculate Conception Flag, the same way that "Foreign troops" used each one's national flag of the time. I don't know if "Austracists vs. Bourbonics is probably a Spanish historiography bias", but that's the way it is... Supporters of the Austria branch and the Bourbon branch. --Maurice27 09:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Spanish article on this war amply demonstrates Mountolive’s recognition that in Spain ‘we are taught this war was mostly a Spanish event’. It may be a surprise, even shock to nationalistsic sensibilities that many in Europe thought Spain a sideshow. Not that you would know from reading the Spanish article, but as with all King Louis’ wars, the pivotal theatre was Flanders.

The English article has been ‘hijacked’ somewhat by Spanish users. The terms Austriacists and Boubonics to describe the protagonists are not terms familiar to English readers of the subject. Nor historians.

Would you describe the allies as Austriacists after 1711. Of course not. When Charles succeeded as emperor on the death of his older brother, it changed everything s far as the Alliance is concerned. The maritime powers were no more willing to accept Austrian hegemony than they were Bourbon hegemony. Where does that leave your ‘Austriacist’ label. Not to mention that the maritime powers were originally supporters of Philip!

The Austriacist label also takes no consideration of internal politics of the other powers of Europe. Who in their right mind would describe the Tory administration in England as Austriacist? Ridiculous. What about New England colonists – Austracist?

Misleading, Spanish parochialism. Raymond Palmer 16:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right. The thing is that someone should free the article from the Spanish hijackers (I'm one of those). My point is: if I see Spanish (or Catalan nationalist) bait here, I am going to bite the hook. I think, as I said above, that you guys should re-take the article to the pre-Onofre Bouvila era, regardless of how much yelling you get in the meantime. But, if this isn't done (and let it be soon), this will get a pond with each time more and more Spanish fishes. Mountolive | Talk 15:29, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
As I've already said before, Austriacists and Bourbonics are the way to name the spanish troopsand the foreign troops that fought at least in Spain, as they shared commanders. That said, it also quite common to describe the austriacists as the alliance. BUT, the spanish troops are bourbonics and austracists to prevent to have to use crows of aragon or castile which are incorrect terms.
In this same way during the spanish civil war of 1936 we had the republicans (which were named also the reds, communists...) and the nationals (faschists, monarquists...) all those names are not really correct as the republicans were also nationals and the nationals were also in a vast majority republicans. Once more, the spanish armies in this war context are the bourbonics and austriacists. --Maurice27 16:41, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
All this stuff is what I have been saying for weeks, but the problem here is that the anglo editors make a very compact group and oppose anything that goes away from their short point of view. And in Spain we have such interesting contributions such as Mount Olive, who revert logical edits made by informed people like Maurice, saying stuff like "rv: Maurice, you know very well I always respect your point; this time, however, I think we'd rather let this cold yet efficient anglosaxon people take care of this: it's for the good of the article". For which good? It is not only that they are not telling the truth, by hiding factions that are extremely obvious and that indeed existed and have been proved to exist in this article; it is also that obvious things like the banners used by the combatants are wrong! So the main argument to revert the absolutely logical and true facts that maurice tryed to expose in the article, is that the "anglosaxon people are cold yet efficient". Yeah, you're so smart, I like your style (actuar así en este país tiene un nombre, no lo voy a mencionar, pero la rae lo define como persona aduladora y servil).
Anyway, the infobox is worst than ever now. Somebody removed the Spanish generals and added lots more of french generals, and the Crown of Aragon was removed. I already said in this talk page that the Senyera was not the appropiate flag to represent the Austriacists from the Crown of Aragon, but since these smart people didn't allow us to introduce the Austriacist coat of arms, we had nothing better to represent them.
The problem here is that people with a short point of view, who use to come from the UK or the US, countries that have been almost all the history united, have a very simple vision of the things. For you, this article is just a part of the "wikiproject military history", and wars are so cool, and wars consist on perfect battles that confront two armies with their generals and stuff, and anything that goes away from this vision of the things has no place in the article. So I'll tell you something, things are not so simple, and just because you get some anglo history books that reject anything that does not fit their simple point of view, and you monopolize this article from your anglo lobby, doesn't mean you are right. You do not allow the catalan austriacists and the other austriacists from Spain to be mentioned in the infobox, in the same way that you try to group all the Spanish forces that fought under the Bourbonics in the "Spanish Army", using by the way, and according to Maurice sources, a wrong flag, just because they don't fit your stupid, yes, stupid vision that things must be like two armies, with their flags, and their commanders, and anything that goes further is removed. And you look down factions that fought in the war just because maybe they were not represented in great number in some battles, but this war, like almost any, was not a simple war where two armies crashed. It was a civil war, and millions of people, at least in Spain, fought against eachother. In catalonia, for example, the guerrilla warfare lasted for tens of years, and involved thousands of people. Saying things like that in this war the Spanish forces were minor, they changed the side, and treating them like if they were all a bunch of traitors, blablabla, and other trash vomited by people like Albrecht just shows an enormous lack of respect and biased point of view that prevails here.
So all these things should be reflected in the article. But you just allow your silly point of view, and when you have the occasion, you remove any reference that does not fit with what you think. Along some weeks I could introduce some interesting info to explain the climate that was lived in Spain during the war (according to smart people like Albrecht I destroyed the article or something like that, when all what I did was to introduce a reference to explain this fact, introduce a reference to explain the fact of England-GBR, and try to add the Austriacist and Bourbonic factions), but when Maurice introduced his changes, and you reverted it, you also wiped the changes that I had could finally introduce, changes that you had agreed with (Talk:War_of_the_Spanish_Succession#Flag_War, check the "infobox compromise").
Enough arguments have been exposed in this discussion like to prove that, at least, there is a vision of this conflict that does not match with the reality that through your anglo point of view you are giving in the article: [11], [12], [13], [14]. But as I said, anything that goes away from your silly point of view is erased from the article, and even when some changes like the ones I did to give credit to what really happened are introduced, you wipe them when you have the opportunity.
And it's very sad that people who, since they are from Spain, are supposed to have a wider point of view, renounce to explain the truth, and subdute to this manipulation.
But well, for more arguments that one can give, it is impossible to change anything if the article is controlled by a bunch of fanatics that take some history books that give a very partial and limited point of view and use them like if they were the bible, converting an article that should talk about a war with all its consequences, and explain the reality of the situation by those times, into an article that explains the facts like if all was so simple like fighting some battles that confronted two fixed and stereotyped factions and nothing more (instead they are wrong, just to fit with your point of view of the history). Onofre Bouvila 20:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article

I think we should set aside the Catalan nationalist problem for the time being and work on the rest of the article. It's good, generally, but if it was nominated for FA today it would probably not pass. I'm going to try to gather some citations for the rest of the article and work to ensure that it would not fail should someone put it up for FA review. As it stands now, not including that cancerous appendage to the info box, we have four footnotes. This is an important article, and certainly deserves better citation. Coemgenus 12:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It is not "Catalan nationalism", it's just explaining what really happened. The fact of having the point of view of what you call a "Catalan nationalist" does not generate bias but a gives a wider point of view to analyze the things. I could also say that, writting the whole article from your point of view is "British nacionalism". And indeed I say it, because it is. Trying to add information about Spain and the situation of its territories by those times is not trying to propagate a nationalist idea of the conflict; it is just trying to give credit to the facts, to what really happened: a part of the history that from your your vision of the things you are ignoring. This article will never be a featured article (talking about the reality, not about what a bunch of guys say it is) until you leave aside your globalizing point of view and stop seeing this like a "two factions conflict", and stop ignoring other realities that, though far to you, did exist and must be explained in the article; you are banning these realities to be explained, and even mentioned. That, is being nationalist and intolerant; not trying to explain them. Onofre Bouvila 20:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Spain section?

I salute Raymond Palmer's edits tonight as they seem to focus back the article to a more worldwide view. I guess it was the article as it is now which was awarded as a featured article, and that has some value.

This said, it is still true that in Spain this war is basically reduced to a (God forgive me for what I'm about to say) "Austracists vs. Bourbonics". While Pamer's edit has all my support, I think the Spanish side of the story still could get some further development so that the War is explained as a Spanish-only event as well within this article.

I try to refrain from every parochianism whatsoever, still, well, this is called "War of the Spanish Succession" for something. And it indeed represented many things for Spain (and Spain's perception in the world), namely its official dethroning from the major powers in Europe and a substantial change of Regime.

So, my proposal is that we open a, as small as possible section "War in Spain", "Consequences for Spain" or any other similar title focusing in this war as a Spanish-only event. That way, us the Spaniards we could restrict our cock fighting there and not mess the rest of the article nor the infobox (I mean cock as in "rooster"...).

Does this make any sense or it is actually an infortunate idea?

Mountolive | Talk 04:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with you... About the names of the spanish troops, my changes were only in the infobox and I took care of adding "spanish" in front of Bourbonics and Austriacists.. I didn't change any single line of the text... And you reverted me... snif snif.. I'm about to cry... You bad boy... ;)--Maurice27 09:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
well, the infobox is one of the most "sensitive spots" in the article, so the "only in the infobox" claim is not convincing enough for me :P
believe me that it hurted me to revert you ;) at least it is proved now that we can disagree :D —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mountolive (talk • contribs) 20:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
I think the article has enough room for expansion that no one will object to the addition of content pertaining to Spain or the Spanish perspective. This of course should not be taken as an invitation to swamp the article with trivial data or obscure information not pertinent to the global perspective; efforts should be made as far as possible to integrate the information into the existing narrative (for example, Raymond Palmer's excellent War of the Grand Alliance article imbeds the Spanish theatre of operations into the overall chronology, which is a model I think we should follow. I would therefore question the usefulness of adding a Spain heading per se unless significant new content is forthcoming; the article's contents should determine its structure and not the other way around). But I don't see this being a problem, and in any case, information could always be moved to sub articles if the need were to arise. Finally, I would suggest (although I imagine this is already your intention) keeping the regular contributors informed of any major changes you entertain. Albrecht 22:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Mhhh...I don't know how to take your post above, I guess that, related to my proposal, "indecisive, strategic defeat of a Spain-only section" is a not too bad guess ;)
I do agree that opening sections for the sake of opening sections is not a good idea, as it messes the article. This said, I still think there is a Spanish-only leg of the war which could deserve its own section. This would not affect the global perspective but actually improve it with a Spanish point of view.
The problem I see with embedding the Spanish side with the main article is that it either messes the global article or, alternatively, doesn't hardly get any insight on the Spanish side of the story itself.
A Spain devoted section would provide the right playground for a "Austracists" vs. "Bourbonics" rhetoric, Catalan garrison commanders et al.
Yes, indeed I am willing to hear Palmer's comments before taking any action, his charge could well take this out of its current indecisive stage ;) Mountolive | Talk 00:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
You sounded great... :) --Maurice27 01:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mountolive for your diplomacy in helping to resolve our impasse. I personally think Albrecht’s advice is good. Which is not surprising - few people on the MilHist project (and I include myself) have the depth of knowledge and intelligence that he possesses. Like he says, it’s probably preferable to weave the Spanish history into the existing framework – as stated there’s plenty of room to expand, including adding the Austriacist and Bourbonic terms if it’s clearly in a Spanish context.

I think contributions from the two Spanish editors would greatly benefit the article. My contribution to the article has mainly been cosmetic, so any addition of substance would be beneficial; but keep in mind – as you have already acknowledged - the global perspective of the article. Raymond Palmer 15:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


In my opinion, Mountolive's proposal on a "War in Spain/Consequences for Spain" section is not a bad idea, for the consequences of this war for Spain went further than in any other place (I think). A separated article, linked here, is another option. --Joan sense nick 23:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved reader - this historiographic war has required large amounts of popcorn, but kept me largely entertained - do we know of anybody who has written anything comparring Spanish historiography of the war to English or indeed European historiography more generally? If so perhaps we could appropriate... I mean reference... some of their research to include a section on different perceptions of the war. Note: I would not suggest doing this unless it has already been published as it would step boldly into the realm of original research.Inane Imp 12:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one question to start: "How are named both sides in this war by the anglo-saxons?" Alliance Vs. France? Great Britain/Holy Roman Empire Vs. France/Spain? It would also be great to know these names by a german user... --Maurice27 15:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

May I make some edits please?

Would anyone object to some edits I have in mind? I am new to this, (but I am a history professor :P ).

Go ahead. The Wiki philosophy is to 'be bold', but don't be too surprised if your revisions get reversed. That is just the beginning of the discussion. (things take time). Gomm 22:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

causes not clear

After reading this article, it is not clear what the causes of this war are.209.232.148.110 19:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Royally fucked up inheritance? --Victor falk 03:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_of_the_Spanish_Succession/Archive_1&oldid=1059618977"