View Full Version : Comparing the English and Spanish Empires


pavelsu
Dec 06, 2001, 09:49 AM
Which empire became bigger and stronger in the history, Spanish or English?

As of now, there is no longer any "blank vs Blank" threads.

You may continue to discuss the merits of one civilization against another, but no more "vs" in thread titles, it leads to trouble.

Thanks for your time.

AoA

Kublai-Khan
Dec 06, 2001, 10:13 AM
Spain in its peak was the only super power,it even controlled the netherlands and a great amount of what now is called germany.
Then Spain became a tecnologically backwards country along with Turkey.
Britain in its peak was the biggest economical power, but the best army was the prussian army, and the french , austrians and the russians were also quite powerful.
The power was more shared.


That is why i voted spain.

Sayhueque
Dec 06, 2001, 09:12 PM
Now, since this is empires we're talking about, I will limit my comparison to the domestic policies of the Spanish and English.

For one, the Spanish management of the colonies was pathetic. The english colonies were much better run (despite still being rather inefficient) and the British civilising and assimilation policies towards natives was much sounder (even when the policy was to get rid of the natives and colonise with white settlers).

Influence into the future, yeah, the Spanish have given us a continent. But the English decolonisation period has led to the current state of Africa, India, the Middle East and the Far East. English influence into the future seems much more global and withstanding, then again the Spanish were incapacitated to amass the Empire the British did.

Knight-Dragon
Dec 06, 2001, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Kublai-Khan
Spain in its peak was the only super power,it even controlled the netherlands and a great amount of what now is called germany.
Then Spain became a tecnologically backwards country along with Turkey.
Britain in its peak was the biggest economical power, but the best army was the prussian army, and the french , austrians and the russians were also quite powerful.
The power was more shared.


That is why i voted spain. I thought the reason why you voted for Spain was cos you're Argentinian? J/k.

Britain at its peak didn't have a big army. True. Well, they didn't need that big an army. They got this first line of defence against Europe. It's called the English Channel. So instead, the Brits got the biggest navy in the world. The official policy was to have a navy that's as big as the 2nd and 3rd biggest navies in Europe, combined. ;)

I voted for the English cos well, I am fr a former British colony. :) And I really think the English had a greater influence on the world cos well, this forum is in English ......

Knight-Dragon
Dec 06, 2001, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by Sayhueque
Influence into the future, yeah, the Spanish have given us a continent. But the English decolonisation period has led to the current state of Africa, India, the Middle East and the Far East. English influence into the future seems much more global and withstanding, then again the Spanish were incapacitated to amass the Empire the British did. You forgot the most important country the English had given to the world - the United States of America. ;)

Kublai-Khan
Dec 07, 2001, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
You forgot the most important country the English had given to the world - the United States of America. ;)

Sayhueque is also argentinean but he voted the british empire.

And ywas, i also believe that they had a bigger influence in the world, but that is more related with their great ex-colony the USA.
I was comparing them in its peak moment.

And wich country discovered America, wasnīt that influential?
-Please, not vikings-

SunTzu
Dec 07, 2001, 07:48 PM
The English Empire was better.
Even though Spain was bringing in a good amount of treasures from the americas they were nearly broke.
The British Empire was vast and lasted longer :)

Julien
Dec 07, 2001, 10:30 PM
Spain in its peak was the only super power,it even controlled the netherlands and a great amount of what now is called germany.
Then Spain became a tecnologically backwards country along with Turkey.
Britain in its peak was the biggest economical power, but the best army was the prussian army, and the french , austrians and the russians were also quite powerful.
The power was more shared.

The great Spanish Empire that controlled most of Germany like you say, was actually the pivate possesions of Charles V of Habsburg (known as Charles I of Spain, but he didn't speak Spanish, what did little good for his popularity in this country). Spain was no more conrolling Germany, Austria, Burgundy and the Netherlands that one of these part did on Spain or between them. Charles V inherited Spain from his mother and the rest from his father. When he died, his son Philip II only inherited Spain (and colonies) and the Netherlands. Maximilian, Charles's brother, inherited the original Habsburg empire.

When you consider that Charles V was born and raised in Ghent (today in Belgium) and had French as a first language (though he also spoke Latin, German and Italian), we can hardly see his Empire as a Spanish empire.

Julien
Dec 07, 2001, 11:06 PM
The Spanish Empire has also included the Portuguese one when both countries were unified under Philip II. This extended its range to the mini-colonies along African and Indian coast (Equatorial Guinea, Sao Tome, Angola, Mozambique, Goa, Daman, Diu, Ceylan...) as well as Malacca in Malaysia, the Celbes and Molucca in Indonesia, Macao in China, a part of Nagazaki in Japan and obviously Brazil. This made a much wider empire than "just" the South American Spanish colonies. But later these empire grew up distinct again.

South America is now dominantly Native Spanish/Portuguese speaking and is culturally so as well (so countries somewhat less, like Peru and Bolivia). The religion is uniform and the people feel like a large community of Latin American (with Argentina the exception, feeling more European, but still).

In comparison, the British Empire was overwhelmingly commercial, especially after the independance of the US. Canada, Australia and NZ were the only real colonies of British settlement. African and Asian colonies were never more than administered by the UK. It surely was more peaceful and efficient than massacring all the infidels, raping, killing and converting all the people living there before their arrival, as the Spanish did. Nowadays, English is more widely spoken than Spanish, but fewer have it as a native language. I have travelled around all India and was happy to see that uneducated poor people could understand some English, but very few speak it fluently.


Today, people see the Aztec, Mayan and Inca ruins as part of Spanish speaking countries. Some would almost say it's a part of Spanish cultural heritage !:eek: But never would even think of the Taj Mahal or the Great Pyramids has being part of an English speaking country (not even has an Arabic heritage for the Pyramids). It shows how deep has been the Spanish deculturisation of South America to impose its own system, language and especially religion. Look at the oddity that are the Christian Philippines in Asia, in the middle of Buddhist, Hindu, Confucianist, Taoist (now more Maoist, though :p), Shinto and other Animists. They are one of the most fanatical Catholic group in the world. Did you see in the news yesterday that a man even cut his penis, inspired by the Bible, because lead him to sin !!:eek: (http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20011207/od/penis_dc_1.html)

But without the British there would be Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, NZ, Canada, the USA and many others. Or at least not as we know them today. Even the future of India owns a lot to the British - Aren't 20 millions of upper class Indian Native English speaker having studied in England for most of them ? Isn't English the lingua franca of India, even more than Hindi, because the South Indian prefer English to Hindi. It is anyway the main administrative language used by the government.

I chose the British Empire because it was more civilised and had a more global influence. But the Spanish empire was impressive as well.

Kublai-Khan
Dec 07, 2001, 11:34 PM
It surely was more peaceful and efficient than massacring all the infidels, raping, killing and converting all the people living there before their arrival, as the Spanish did.

That is part of what is called the black legend, it is a plain exageratrion and sometimes very ridiculous, i had a discussion about this with an american guy 2 weeks ago and he told me that before the conquer the Aztec empire had 25 millions inhabitants -wich was false-
25 millions inhabitants was probably more than the whole population of the American continent.The estimated population of the Aztec empire was of 5 or 6 millions.
There is some kind of exageration in the numbers to make it sound more tragic.
The sistem of mita was far better than those poor black men planting cotton.

It shows how deep has been the Spanish deculturisation of South America to impose its own system, language and especially religion
With the exception of the Usa Canada Argentina and Uruguay,most of the people are mestizos in the american continent, the spanish conqueror came to america and married indian woman, not like the british colonist that came to america with his whole family and settled there without keeping contact with the native population.
The spanish came to america and generated a different group of people racially and a new kind of culture, it was the mixture of 2 different worlds, the briths colonist simply exterminated the indians and replaced it with european colonists.
We are not the ones who played indians and cowboys when we were kids.
And the culture of the indians still exist, but not just in a very far exotic jungle.
There are millions of pure indians who speak aymara or quechua or the mayan language.
The still have their traditions and they practice christianity with indian elements.
Do you remember Bartolome de las casas? It is a shame that the north american indians never had a kind of men like him.
I think that the British empire was more phoenicians, becouse it was more focused in extracing the resource and commercializing it.

Julien
Dec 08, 2001, 07:51 AM
That is part of what is called the black legend, it is a plain exageratrion and sometimes very ridiculous, i had a discussion about this with an american guy 2 weeks ago and he told me that before the conquer the Aztec empire had 25 millions inhabitants -wich was false-
25 millions inhabitants was probably more than the whole population of the American continent.The estimated population of the Aztec empire was of 5 or 6 millions.
There is some kind of exageration in the numbers to make it sound more tragic.
The sistem of mita was far better than those poor black men planting cotton.

I know Spain was not the only one to have a bad role in the colonisation. All other countries had their part of abuses and killings and I don't deny it. Now, I think what made the Spanish look the worse is because they arrived first on the American continent. I recommend that you read the book Guns, Germs and Steel of Jared Diamond (there is a thread on this topic aready). The author estimates that 90% of the Native Americans died from epidemic diseases brought by Europeans. The Aztecs were decimated, not by guns, but by smallpox, measles or flu. That's why a small group of adventurers lead by Cortes could conquer a empire of millions just with a few hundreds men. Same story with the Incas ; smallpox had already reached the Empire before Pizzaro landed in Peru. The epidemy had spread from Mexico/Guatemala in the few years that followed the Spanish arrival on the mainland. The Inca emperor (Huyana Capac ?) and his designated sucessor had both succumbed to the disease a few months before Pizzaro arrived and the country had plunged into a civil war. Attahualpa and his brother fought each other for the title of emperor, and the former had just won when Pizzaro met him at Cajamarca. The Empire was weakened, what explain partially (along with other factors, such as horses, guns and steel, like the title of the book suggest) the easy Spanish victory.

But other Amerindians also died massively from European brought diseases. Before the first explorers even reached Misissippi, a whole civilization (the most advanced in North America, that had large cities and a government) had almost disappeared ! Very few people know about this Misissippi Civilization, mainly because very little was left for Europeans to write about when they arrived. They discovered large emptied cities, without to understand what had happened there. Neither the Spanish, nor the French later had to fight against a strucured empire in this region. Nevertheless, European (diseases) exterminated this civ.

For what you say about black slaves, don't forget that they were first brought to Brazil, Haiti and Cuba, very early after the start of the colonization. They were working espeially in sugar cane fields (to make the famous Carribean rum) and to cut trees in Brazil (Ebony wood ; the term was also used to call African slaves in the triangle commerce Europe-Africa-America). Nowadays, Cuba has a black population of about 90%. That shows well enough where they were most needed.
The slaves from Africa only came to the US much later to work in cotton fields.

Kublai-Khan
Dec 08, 2001, 09:08 AM
Something that is very ironic and sad is that the spanish
started to use black people as slaves becouse the ligislation to protect indians was too strong.
So they changed the indians for the black people.:(

Julien
Dec 08, 2001, 09:30 AM
Something that is very ironic and sad is that the spanish
started to use black people as slaves becouse the ligislation to protect indians was too strong.
So they changed the indians for the black people.

Was there any legislation protecting the Indians at that time ? Spanish Colonies, until their independance in the early 19th century, were probably not a place where legislation had a important place. In the 16th century, soon after the Europeans established their first colonies, slaves were already being "imported" from West Africa. I think that many people (criminals, last-chance people who'd lost everything or had nothing to loose, persecuted protestants, etc.) actualy emigrated from Europe to America justly because there were virtually no laws (except taxs and respect of the royal authority) and they'd be free to start a new life in a new world again. This was valid for all the continent. After the US independance, it was still true in the "wild west" that had not yet been assimilated as a part of the country (at least not as states). This explain the violence between "Cowboys and Indians" and the presence of so many bandits and gangs. Later, there had to be sheriffs in each town that did their own laws to preserve the society from these gangs or lonely bandit thirsty of gold and dollars.

Knight-Dragon
Dec 08, 2001, 09:51 AM
IIRC (understand now, no?), Britain had a policy of sending off criminals to the colonies as part of the punishment handed down by the courts. Even for petty crimes sometimes. The New England states used to be the original receipient but after the American Revolution, the Brits shipped them to other new colonies like Australia e.g.

Kublai-Khan
Dec 08, 2001, 10:02 AM
You really shock me
there was a huge legislation protecting the indians.
I will try to find a link to a history site for you becouse it seems that you donīt know much about spanish history.

pavelsu
Dec 08, 2001, 10:58 AM
This map shows European Spanish Empire in Charles V reign (all coloured surfaces), in Philip II reign Germany became independent and Portugal (and Brazil) was annexioned for some decades.

Suppersalmon
Dec 08, 2001, 04:34 PM
The Britsh empire rocked :king:

Julien
Dec 08, 2001, 10:31 PM
This map shows European Spanish Empire in Charles V reign (all coloured surfaces), in Philip II reign Germany became independent and Portugal (and Brazil) was annexioned for some decades.

You probably mean the Austrian empire. Actually, Charles was no more Spanish than French or Austrian. His four grand-parents being (his paternal grandfather)Emperor Maximilian of Habsburg (Austrian), Mary of Burgundy (French), Ferdinand II of Aragon (Spanish, with French ancestors), Isabella I of Castilla (Spanish).

It's a nonsense to me to say it was a Spanish Empire. Charles had distinct titles for Spain (king), Austria (Emperor), Burgundy (Duke), Milano (Duke), Flanders (Count) and all other regions of his so-called empire. Even in Spain, he was still known as king of Castilla y Leon and Navara y Aragon. He inherited all titles separetly (ie at different ages) and gave them separetely when he retired (as you know, his son became king of Spain a few years before Charles'death, after he retired in a monastry in Extremadura).

Spain remained a kingdom afterwards, as it has always been. Austria kept the title of Empire, along with another older empire : the Holy Roman Empire (that had elected emperor, not hereditary, even if Charles V was himself elected).

check this link for more info : http://gallery.euroweb.hu/tours/spain/charles5.html

Magnus
Dec 09, 2001, 02:39 AM
I voted England. The Spanish Empire was relatively brief compared to the British. Freak storms will do that ;)

pavelsu
Dec 09, 2001, 08:38 AM
Julien, you are right (and Possibly you know more history than I), but dont forget that the empire capital was in Spain, all territories in Europe, Africa and America was governed from there, and the king was Spanish, In consequence it was the Spanish empire and seems to be a bit absurd to deny it.

Brief, Magnus? More than three centuries (Finals of the 15th century , 16th, 17th, 18th and Principles of the 19th century? it was more lasting than English Empire!
Sorry but It is evident that you do not know the topic.

Magnus
Dec 10, 2001, 12:18 AM
The Spanish plundered and the English colonized. Big difference.

knowltok
Dec 10, 2001, 07:35 AM
Something that should be kept in mind about the various groups of American Indians.

1. The Spanish encountered empires with structure. The British, and the Americans encountered tribes, with very little structure.

2. The terrain and setting were quite different. Central American natives used to living in cities could no more melt into the jungle than could the Spanish. The NA natives were quite at home in small bands in the forrests and plains of NA. They also had a much greater area in which to hide and manuver.

3. When the spanish made their conquest the natives had no idea about guns or horses. By the time the Americans got to the great plains, the natives were framilier with guns, and had become a horse culture.

The point is to show how much more difficult the NA natives were to conquer than the Central and SA natives. This in no way is meant to justify the treatment of the NA natives, nor the short-sightedness of those making deals with them. Rather to illustrate that vast numbers of the natives could not be conquered in one fell swoop, which allowed the Spanish the option of mixng with the natives.

Okay, let fly.;)

Julien
Dec 10, 2001, 09:27 AM
Julien, you are right (and Possibly you know more history than I), but dont forget that the empire capital was in Spain, all territories in Europe, Africa and America was governed from there, and the king was Spanish, In consequence it was the Spanish empire and seems to be a bit absurd to deny it.

What capital are you speaking about ? Oh, allright, the Spanish colonies. Yes, they were indeed governed from Spain. Do you know what was the capital of Spain during Charles V 's reign ? I am not going to tell you, I'll wait your answer. But when Charles arrived in Spain at the age of 15 to take his inheritance and become king, he didn't speak a word of Spanish and took his Burgundian and Flemish court with him. That caused the Spanish nobles to revolt against him, feeling that Spain was now govern by foreigner and no more Spaniards. After that, Charles spent most of his life outside Spain, from Italy to the Netherlands via Austria and Germany, if it weren't for his years of retirement in a monastry close to Portugal.

What's more, Spain has NEVER govern Austria or Germany or be its capital. the Habsburg capital has always been in Wien (Vienna). There was no real German capital, because the Holy Roman Empire was an amalgamation of independant states with their own capital. The official capital could have been Rome (in name, like in Holy ROMAN empire and the pope crowning every emperor, but not a de facto capital though). Spain under Philip II (Charles V's son) was indeed governing the Netherlands and Southern Spain (Kingdom of 2 Sicily) and even Portugal a short time, but that's all. When the United Provinces of the Netherlands acquired their independance in the mid-17th century, Spain was left with only the Southern part of the Benelux, and not even all as the quite big principalty of Liege (Luettich in German) has always been an independant Holy Roman state.

;)

Sodak
Dec 10, 2001, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Julien
...it was still true in the "wild west" that had not yet been assimilated as a part of the country (at least not as states). This explain the violence between "Cowboys and Indians" and the presence of so many bandits and gangs.
Not really. The violence was due to whites encroaching on indian lands. The US established hundreds of treaties with indians, granting them (their own) lands, and assurance that whites would keep out. Not a single treaty was honored by the US. As soon as it seemed inconventient to leave an area alone, settlers and profit seekers from the east would move into indian land, which inevitably caused conflict. Or the US would build a railroad across prime hunting grounds. Or they would just move in and massacre indians just to intimidate them and their neighbors.
Understandably, the indians were not amused with this appalling behavior. Perhaps after it was too late, they simply begain terrorizing the encroaching whites, as it was clear the army was not about the help them, despite promises to the contrary. Lawlessness was the direct result of US policy to exterminate or exile all indians deemed to be in the way.

Regarding laws protecting indians, I've heard of nothing of the sort for anywhere in the americas. Well, maybe there were pieces of paper stating something to that effect, but nowhere was protection practiced, from Labrador to Tierra del Fuego. If protection was offered on the condition of conversion to christianity and abandonment of traditional ways, then it is not protection. Then it is cultural destruction - do as we do, or die.

The French at least took a more realistic approach, treating the indians as humans. Maybe this was because they needed them as allies in the political chess games against England, not because they would have done any differently in other circumstances, I don't know. But the effect was different. The English had their very lives to thank the indians, but showed their appreciation by killing and exiling them. The Spanish sought to destroy their cultures and subdue them. None of the europeans made any effort to help or protect them except when expedient to their own schemes.

Sodak
Dec 10, 2001, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Magnus
The Spanish plundered and the English colonized. Big difference.
:lol: No, actually, I don't get this joke... :o

Huh? What are you talking about? The Spanish colonized, too - that's why people of european stock are the majority (or largest minority, after majority blacks) in almost all latin american countries! Did the English not plunder and kill? They most definitely did. The booty was worth less than what the Spanish took, but $ value isn't what separates plunder from some other, more benign, activity.

Beam
Dec 10, 2001, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Julien


Spain under Philip II (Charles V's son) was indeed governing the Netherlands and Southern Spain (Kingdom of 2 Sicily) and even Portugal a short time, but that's all. When the United Provinces of the Netherlands acquired their independance in the mid-17th century, Spain was left with only the Southern part of the Benelux, and not even all as the quite big principalty of Liege (Luettich in German) has always been an independant Holy Roman state.

;)

In addition to this, Philip II had governance and control only in name over the Northern Netherlands which basically became independant by the Union of Utrecht (1579) and was internationally recognized as an independant state at the Peace of Munster (1648). This not only marked the end of the first European Civil War or 30-year war, but also of the Dutch Independance war, the 80-year war.

IMHO neither the British nor Spanish empires ever had the impact of the Roman Empire so the only real vote here is for the Romans!

Jorge
Dec 10, 2001, 11:52 AM
I would like to say some things about the Spanish history (as a native I am supposed to know it well).

Jullien is partially right. Charles V became king of many territories because he inherited them. But there is one thing that Jullien is missing. The most powerful kingdom of all was Castilla, and it was there where he installed his court. So we can say that the capital of all the inherited territories was the capital of Castilla, Toledo. Later, Charles V became emperor of the Holy Empire, which only is a title, he didn’t actually govern all Germany, Austria … just the territories he inherited before becoming emperor. This was a disaster for Castilla (Spain) because Charles V used all the power of Castilla (the soldiers for the army and the gold that came every year from the American colonies) to save the unity of the Catholicism (after all he was the Emperor of the Holy Empire). Many of the wars that Spain held in that period were because of this. He, and later his son Philip II, buried Spain even more (Spain was already a catholic country, I’m not going to blame only on the Habsburg dynasty) in the religious fanatism.

Anyway, the period of maximum power for the Spanish empire was with Philip II. Here it’s clear that we can already say that all the territories of the empire were dominated and governed by Spain.

If I had to reply to the question I would say that the Spanish empire was more powerful, but the English was more civilized.

pavelsu
Dec 10, 2001, 02:18 PM
First, thank you for worrying for my education, Julien, but I already am studying Hispanic philology and go to Spain very often.

Charles's I court (Charles V is not correct becuse he was nominated this way only in Germany ) was in valladolid, though Toledo was a very important city.

Charles I was Spanish, his mother and his father were Spanish, when he was crowned he went to Spain because Spain was the most important country of the whole empire and because he was Spanish, the fact that his court was foreign (a little time, since soon he got rid of it) is anecdotal.

As for the forefathers of his father you should know that the European monarchies are very international. Not for it the current prince of Spain (principe de Astorias) is Greek, though his mother is Greek. Besides, the grandfathers do not determine the nationality of a person!.

It is incredible since how you and some historians (English in the main), wring the history to shape it to yours taste. You have something personal in opposition to the history of Spain?. Do not wring it any more, poor history!!

One more thing: The proof that the Spanish empire was much more powerful than the English empire is that Spain has never felt threatened by the English power, except for any punctual assault of the pirates (the english men always have been perfect pirates). Nevertheless England has been for centuries entrenched after the channel, looking to Spain (and to other European countries) with fear.

Julien
Dec 11, 2001, 08:11 AM
First, thank you for worrying for my education, Julien, but I already am studying Hispanic philology and go to Spain very often.

Charles's I court (Charles V is not correct becuse he was nominated this way only in Germany ) was in valladolid, though Toledo was a very important city.

Charles I was Spanish, his mother and his father were Spanish, when he was crowned he went to Spain because Spain was the most important country of the whole empire and because he was Spanish, the fact that his court was foreign (a little time, since soon he got rid of it) is anecdotal.

Charles I was Spanish, his mother and his father were Spanish, when he was crowned he went to Spain because Spain was the most important country of the whole empire and because he was Spanish, the fact that his court was foreign (a little time, since soon he got rid of it) is anecdotal.

As for the forefathers of his father you should know that the European monarchies are very international. Not for it the current prince of Spain (principe de Astorias) is Greek, though his mother is Greek. Besides, the grandfathers do not determine the nationality of a person!.

It is incredible since how you and some historians (English in the main), wring the history to shape it to yours taste. You have something personal in opposition to the history of Spain?. Do not wring it any more, poor history!!

Well, I have studied 2 months in Spain this year and took the oportunity to travel around the country (also Portugal) and learn its history in greater depth (as I am already graduated in history/philosophy).

It seems strange to see how history books are written diferently from one country to the other, as you noticed it. On Internet, I saw on some sites that Charles I/V was born in Spain, and on others in Ghent (Flanders, Belgium), the latter I believe to be true. Just have a look at these sites and compare :
http://wwwdumas.sesc.k12.ar.us/~hispanic/charlesv.htm
(obvious mistake that San Jeronimo de Juste was the place were he died and not were he was born)
http://gallery.euroweb.hu/tours/spain/charles5.html

Then, Maximilian of Habsburg (ie of Austria) was his paternal grandfather, what should give him an Austrian nationality, as his Spanish origins were on the maternal side. It has always been like this. Not because I am not aware of the very international character of the European monarchies.

The biography of Charles V I read a few years ago (in French, Gallimard edtion) are the source of most information I wrote about, like his foreign court in Spain, the fact that he didn't speak Spanish and was born and bred in Ghent, surrounded by a Burgundian court.

Now, if Spanish history books say differently, who knows who is right. I don't want to take anybody's side here, as I can't prove facts like this and have to get my information from a book like you. English book probably wring the history to their advantage, as do all others. Why were you told that Charles had to be he First and it was a mistake to call him the Fifth ? Because of your Spanish background. French call him Charles Quint, from the old French word for 5 and was the title with which he was the most commonly known throughout Europe at that time. French was also his native and educational language (and this you can't deny it).

Take it easy, though. I don't like arguing with friends.

MrPresident
Dec 11, 2001, 08:33 AM
Did the English not plunder and kill? They most definitely did. The booty was worth less than what the Spanish took

First of all it was not the English but the British empire. Secondly, the British did not have an empire for plundering because all the good areas for plunder were already taken by the Spain and Portugal. The British only have areas were the aim was to either colonize (as in USA) or trade (as in the Far East). As for the question as to who is better you must first define what makes one empire better than other. I think we can all agree that the empire of Sweden (yes they had one) was not very good but is this because of the lack of land they owned, or the lack of any influence on the present-day, or is it because only the Swedish speak their language. First of all, lets take the language criteria. The language spoken in most countries is English and this is could be evidence that the British empire was better. However as someone said English is probably not the first language of many who can speak it so the Spanish empire is better. The problem is that the biggest empire with the most people who spoke its language as a native one is the Chinese empire. Next is the amount of land in an empire. There is only one winner in this and that is the British Empire, it had North America, Australia and New Zealand, large parts of Africa, Ireland, India, and small islands like Bermuda. As for impact on the present-day it is a lot harder to calculate. The Spanish empire had a huge impact on South America inlcuding customs, language, religion etc. The British had less of an impact on its possessions but because the large amount of them it has to be said that the British Empire had more of an impact. Evidence for this can be found in the Commonwealth and the lack of a Spanish one. So in conclusion, both of these mighty empires had a huge impact of this planet and its history. However I will have to say the British empire had a better one.

Jorge
Dec 11, 2001, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by MrPresident


Next is the amount of land in an empire. There is only one winner in this and that is the British Empire, it had North America, Australia and New Zealand, large parts of Africa, Ireland, India, and small islands like Bermuda.

Did the British had all North America or just a few colonies in the east cost? I think it's a little bit excesive to say that they had North America.

pavelsu
Dec 11, 2001, 12:43 PM
Sorry my excessive vivacity, Julien.

Nevertheless I must say to you that though I am studying Hispanic philology I am still in my first year and being not able to read very well the Spanish (The map was extracted from an american web). For this reason the books of history that I read are written (in the main) by authors that are not Spanish and I have extracted my conclusions of them.

Besides, when you read a French book of history, you must consider chauvinists reputation that the Frenchmen have (dont feel ofended, this is only to intensify a bit the polemic, hehehe).

On Charles's I denomination (or V), in Europe he is known as Charles V because, in the centuries 19th and 20th, Spain has lost cultural and economic importance with regard to France and Germany. For it the interpretation of the historians of these countries has prevailed, but i can sure you that in Spain he is known as Charles I, And I believe that the most valid denomination is the one that he receives in his country.

Kahran Ramsus
Dec 11, 2001, 08:02 PM
Is Canada not a part of North America anymore?

MrPresident
Dec 12, 2001, 04:58 AM
Did the British had all North America or just a few colonies in the east cost? I think it's a little bit excesive to say that they had North America.

I agree that Britain never controlled much of what is now the US of A. However it did control Eastern USA, Canada and the Oregon and that is a lot of land. Also the Spanish didn't control all of South America as it was split by the pope with Portugal taking the east coast. Remants of this split is in the fact that the most populous South American country, Brazil, native language is Portugese and not Spanish.

Julien
Dec 12, 2001, 08:27 AM
On Charles's I denomination (or V), in Europe he is known as Charles V because, in the centuries 19th and 20th, Spain has lost cultural and economic importance with regard to France and Germany. For it the interpretation of the historians of these countries has prevailed, but i can sure you that in Spain he is known as Charles I, And I believe that the most valid denomination is the one that he receives in his country.]

Oh, I didn't deny he was Charles I of Spain, this is in all history books, but also Charles V of Habsburg/Austria/Germany...

What a toil to deal with these mixed dynasties where Charles (or Carlos, Karl or whatever) is a common royal first name everywhere. If he were born as Manfred or Gottfried of Habsbug, under what name would other European people know him today ? I guess that's why high nobility always wore international names such as Heinrich/Henry/Henri/Enrico, Philip/Philippe/Felipe or Peter/Pierre/Pedro/... (Ludwig/Louis/Luis, Richard/Ricardo, etc).

knowltok2
Dec 12, 2001, 09:41 AM
Originally posted by Kahran Ramsus
Is Canada not a part of North America anymore?

Didn't you get the memo? It has actually been decided to seperate. We are going to jointly build a huge space laser and burn a 200 foot trench along the border. We are going to do the same with Mexico, but don't tell them, since they don't know yet.;)

pavelsu
Dec 12, 2001, 11:47 AM
well, Julien, the question on Charles I/V seems to be solved (but i am not agree with you), but I would like to know which is your opinion about the principal topic: Spanish Empire or English Empire?

pavelsu
Dec 12, 2001, 12:25 PM
Spanish Empire map in the peak:

pavelsu
Dec 12, 2001, 12:32 PM
English Empire in the peak:

Magnus
Dec 12, 2001, 12:43 PM
Brazil was Portuguese.

Sodak
Dec 12, 2001, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Magnus
Brazil was Portuguese.
And Portugal was controlled by the Spanish! :lol:

Vrylakas
Dec 12, 2001, 12:55 PM
I didn't vote on this one because the two really aren't comparable. Spanish and English history are so different that their experiences radically diverge. A few notes:

1. We need to remember that we're talking medieval and early-modern empires here, not states. Philip II was not a Spanish nationalist any more than Elisabeth I was an English; they were people at the top of their respective political and social pyramids whose foremost concern was staying on top of that pyramid. Medieval empires were, in our modern language, "multi-national" or "international", because they were not concerned about ethnicity or national heritage. Nationalism is a modern invention. Example: In 1514, the Hungarian noblemen Istvan Werboczy released a treatise called "de Natio Hungarica" (To the Hungarian Nation); by "the Hungarian Nation" he didn't mean all ethnic Hungarians, but all the nobility of the Hungarian empire - some of whom were ethnic Croats, Germans, Ruthenians, etc. Philip II owed his first allegience to the Habsburg family. Austria didn't exist as a country until really the 18th century as Prussia gradually began to supercede Habsburg influence throughout the Germanies, and the name Austria wasn't officially used until after the Napoleonic wars when the Holy Roman Empire was formally dissolved. It's a bit dangerous to look backwards in history and assume that modern countries have always existed in some form. Charles IV ruled from Prague. Families ruled the medieval European world, not countries or nationality; Anjous, Habsburgs, Capets, Saxe-Coburgs, Hohenstaufens, Hesse-Darmstadt, Jagiellonians, etc.

2. On a technical note, the English empire transformed into the British Empire only in the early 18th century as the English and Scottish crowns were formerly united. They needed a name to denote the new imperianum's island-wide scope, so they took over the older Celtic name for their isle...

3. As someone already pointed out quite well, the experiences of the Europeans with the indigeonous peoples of the Americas depended much on the economies/technologies of the natives. Roughly-speaking, the Indians north of Texas were hunter-gatherers while those south of there were quite urbanized and socially sophisticated. There were some exceptions; the Iroquois lived in semi-permanent pallisaded settlements and there was the legendary Cahokia mound-settlements in the Mid-Western U.S., but generally the rule holds. Not only the English, but the French, Dutch and even Swedish ended up fighting long, drawn-out Indian wars to defend or expand their colonies in North America. Even the Spanish had to suppress Seminole uprisings in Spanish Florida.

4. Some interesting differences between the English and Spanish colonial efforts reside in their purpose. Spain was looking for instant wealth (gold, silver) but was also driven by a Catholic missionizing bent. English-speaking peoples learn of the Spanish Jesuit missionaries as murderous tyrants who destroyed native cultures and enslaved Indians (then blacks) to keep the King and Church well-supplied with gold. This overlooks the positive work the Jesuits did throughout South America, often resisting the more gold-hungry adventurers at great peril to themselves. Whether they had a right to impose their religion on the natives is a matter for modern discussion, but given their belief that Catholicism was the true religion they worked hard and in dire conditions to spread that faith among the Indians, along the way providing technological benefits that helped equip the South Amerivcan Indians for the onslaught of European civilization.

The English, on the other hand, barely managed their colonies. The English colonies were largely private affairs (with exceptions), each organized by private individuals who had a plan, some $$$, and committed people. (I'm thinking of the English-populated colonies here.) Also, Spain largely avoided direct participation in Europe's 16th and 17th century religious wars, only intervening from afar; England was repeatedly torn by inter-Protestant and Protestant-Catholic strife - which constantly created large groups of immigrants for the colonies. The simple model someone offered of a "commercial" England versus a missionizing Spain does have a ring of truth to it; Philip II used the massive income of the silver mines to support his foreign adventures while the English colonists had to continuously re-invest in themselves. Philip II's Castille tettered continuously on the brink of bankruptcy, though he was the wealthiest monarch of the world at the time.

Imperial Spain was the pioneer (along with Portugal), who kicked off the European Age of Exploration. The English perfected finance and administration - and through them, almost by accident, governance. The modern world would be a very different place had either one of them mnot existed.

kIndal
Dec 12, 2001, 03:15 PM
I have read this thread and I want to make a pair of comments about a tons of nosenses that can be read here, I believe that much of them came from the ignorance or worse, from a perjuice agaisnt other nation or race caused by "the Spanish Black Legend".

First, I have to said that cannot be compared both empires, they are just different and very great, probably the greatest of their respective ages. there is no one better o worse. and for English patriots if British one is believed the most important empire, is caused by the anglo culture that rules most of the world, but not thanks to English just because USA is the main actual power.

About the sentences that said English colonies are richer than Spanish ones...yes it is true if you compare USA, Canada or Australia with Mexico, Peru or Argentina, but if you compare with African colonies or Asian ones, the Hispanic ones look better ;)

You forgot the most important country the English had given to the world - the United States of America.

AS I said this could be the real reason of thinking that English was more important...if Russia or China would actually be the most important superpower this thinking would change.

About Indians, do you know what a mestizo is? a mix between latin Spanish blood and indian one, most of southamerican was mestizos, so Spanish donīt destroy everything, just mixed with native people (the main reason that caused the mistake of confusing latin people with mestizos one) and added to Spanish culture the thing that they believed that were usefull it is true that died a lot of natives and some culture was lost but in wars ussually happened it, do you remember colonial wars? English didnīt mix with them so they killed them or just expell form their homes, so nobody can said "we made better" ;)

About Charles...what is the real importance about I or V? Philip II of SPain is knew in Portugal as Philip I (but anything changes) It is true that Charles born in Ghent and arrived to Spain with a Burgundian court and donīt speak Spanish but this fact caused two wars: comunidades and Germanias, and this changed this situation at first years of his reign, all courtisans must be Spanish and no more foreign kings will be allowed in Spain. Too, it is true that Charles had a special love to Spain and he carried Spanish goverment style to Europe(take from foreign writers) and in fact he retired to pass the last years of his live in Extremadura (near of Portugal...yes, and what??? he born near of France, so he loved france....:eek: :))

But really the biggest expansion of Spanish Empire was under Philip II, his domains could be properly recogniced as Spanish Empire, it was formed by Castilia,Aragon,Naples,Sicily,Milan, Belgium, Holland(yes they were in revolting but they were), Luxembourg, French Comte, Some cities in Alsace and Lorraine and all possesions in America, New Spain (mexico,central america), Florida and Caribeans islands, New Granada (colombia and Venezuela), Peru and Rio de la Plata(argentina), well and in Asia and Oceania, Philippines islands, Carolinas, Guam... when Philip added Portugal added too their colonies in America,Africa and Asia (but when Portugal independed we lost them again) but too we conquested other possesions, in America, Texas, California, New Mexico or Louisiana and Africa, small Spanish Guinea and North African colonies in Morroco and Sahara, if it is a small empire...:rolleyes: and for everybody, there is a sentence from Philips times that explain it very well, "The Sun never sets in Spanish Empire." Yes, it was firstly used by Spain that by Union Jack.

The Spanish plundered and the English colonized.

just one sentence, somebody can look for two things, Which is the oldest American university?and Which is the oldest city in actual USA?

Remants of this split is in the fact that the most populous South American country, Brazil, native language is Portugese and not Spanish.

Inculture and cheap demagogy, it is true that nowdays Brazil is very populated but in colonial times...:rolleyes: and actually Spanish are spoke by al lot of people in Brazil and one more: Brazil was Spanish from 1581 to 1640 so along some years all south america was Spanish and so why do you say that India was British?isnt true that too there were French, Portuguese and Ducth here???? the same reason...but i believe that we can say India was British.

and had French as a first language (though he also spoke Latin, German and Italian)

One historical fact: In 1526 Charles arrived to Rome and had a discussion with the Pope and main bishops about Milanīs succesion. Firstly he spoke in Spanish, and when a French bishop argued because he didnīt understand anything Charles replied: "Bishop,understand me if you want, and donīt expect from me any word in other language that donīt be my Spanish, because it is so noble that must be konwn and understand by every Christian people" So if they are words from a person that didnīt want anything about Spanish language...:rolleyes:

Today, people see the Aztec, Mayan and Inca ruins as part of Spanish speaking countries. Some would almost say it's a part of Spanish cultural heritage ! But never would even think of the Taj Mahal or the Great Pyramids has being part of an English speaking country

The difference of this is that most mexican and Peruvian people have Spanish and Indian blood so Aztec or Inca culture is their own culture and can be proud that Spanish and naative cultures are theirs(it isnīt Spanish but yes Hispanic), but English people didīt mixed with natives so there are no one that can said that Pyramids or Taj Mahal are British.

Well I belive that it is a long and bored post so I finish it :)

Just the last comment, we cannot compare both empires they were diferent in diferent ages and had diferent objetives and motivations so it is a nosense compare them, yes, anglo people prefer theirs and Spanish one their own, it is logical why argue about it?:D

Why not argue about: What it is better European football or American one?
of course European one :)

knowltok
Dec 12, 2001, 04:27 PM
Saint Augustine is the US's oldest city. Not sure about the University. I always thought it was Harvard, but I bet you've got a different answer.

As far as football goes....Both are great!!! Though I do wish there was less acting involved in taking a fall in football (soccer). We all know that they aren't really that hurt. (In most cases. I do know that it is quite possible to sustain serious injury while playing soccer).

kIndal
Dec 13, 2001, 04:58 AM
Originally posted by knowltok
Saint Augustine is the US's oldest city. Not sure about the University. I always thought it was Harvard, but I bet you've got a different answer.

The first question is true, and the second one, well too, but I refered the oldest American university (not USA, America as continent) and the first one was the university of the city of Mexico.

knowltok
Dec 13, 2001, 06:45 AM
but I refered the oldest American university (not USA, America as continent) and the first one was the university of the city of Mexico.

That occured to me about an hour and a half after I had logged off. Not the actual answer, but that you were obviously getting at a Univeristy started by the Spanish somewhere in the Americas. Thanks for the info. I always say you learn something new everyday, and now I don't have to try any more today.;)

Julien
Dec 13, 2001, 09:32 AM
Very good posts both Vrylakas and kIndal !:goodjob: :goodjob:

You made me learn a few new things, that makes me happy :)

It's true there isn't much point in comparing both empire, but it's just another way of starting an intersting discussion and kill time - or learn something and meet new people.

Also, Spain largely avoided direct participation in Europe's 16th and 17th century religious wars, only intervening from afar; England was repeatedly torn by inter-Protestant and Protestant-Catholic strife - which constantly created large groups of immigrants for the colonies.

Vrylakas, I have to agree with all you said except this point. What do you think was the Dutch independance war about if not religion ? Charles I/V used a lot of Gold in fighting protestantism in Germany, Philip II also went bankrupt as well in repressing the Protestant uprisings in the Netherlands. Inside Spain, the Inquisition was the most infamous way of fighting heretics non-Catholics already before the Protestant arrived, but this was also to preserve the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church.

pavelsu
Dec 13, 2001, 12:07 PM
I think everything what kindal has written becomes evident and indisputable. Nevertheless the manipulation of the history (for Anglo-Saxon historians in the main) in latter century, has led persons as Julien to believe that Charles I/V was French in the fund :eek: (for putting only an example of the above mentioned silly things here). I believe that this habit of changing the history as it is convenient is very harmful because kills a part of the past and does that we come to conclusions mistaken on the present.

Vrylakas
Dec 13, 2001, 12:34 PM
Julien wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vrylakas wrote:

Also, Spain largely avoided direct participation in Europe's 16th and 17th century religious wars, only intervening from afar; England was repeatedly torn by inter-Protestant and Protestant-Catholic strife - which constantly created large groups of immigrants for the colonies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vrylakas, I have to agree with all you said except this point. What do you think was the Dutch independance war about if not religion ? Charles I/V used a lot of Gold in fighting protestantism in Germany, Philip II also went bankrupt as well in repressing the Protestant uprisings in the Netherlands. Inside Spain, the Inquisition was the most infamous way of fighting heretics non-Catholics already before the Protestant arrived, but this was also to preserve the integrity of the Roman Catholic Church.

Sorry Julien, you're struggling with my bad English. :blush:

I meant to say that the Spanish empire never had to struggle with internal religious strife. England suffered a major civil war and lots of Protestant-Catholic bloodshed with virtually each change of monarchs from Henry VIII on til the early 18th century; Spain on the other hand never had large populations of Spanish Protestants to deal with.

Yes, the Spanish empire through its "Netherlands" did experience Protestant unrest and most of the Spanish imperial adventures in Europe were to quell Protestant movements, but the Spanish homeland itself was little affected. This is what I meant by "only intervening from afar". Even such pro-Catholic countries as Poland developed very large Protestant movements, but somehow Spain remained immune.

The consequences of religious internicene warfare in the homeland were lots of bloodshed and destruction (England, Scotland, France, the Germanies, etc.) but it also produced large waves of migrant populations looking to flee the wars and religious oppression at home - which filled up the colonies quick. America in particular benefitted from Europe's religious wars, with English wacko Puritans in New England, German Calvinists and Czech Hussites in Pennsylvania, French Hugonots in South Carolina (Charleston), Scots Catholics and Presbyterians in the Carolinas and Georgia, English Catholics in Maryland (Mary-Land), English followers of John Wycliffe and John Wesley throughout the South, etc. Despite having several decades head-start in their colonies over the English, the Spanish realm very rapidly was surpassed in population by the English colonies because it was so dangerous at different times in the 16th and 17th centuries in England to be...well, whatever your religion, you were an endangered species at some point under some English monarch in that period. Sooner or later your group was out of favor, and it was safer to be on a ship to the colonies...

Knight-Dragon
Dec 13, 2001, 12:57 PM
"Spain on the other hand never had large populations of Spanish Catholics to deal with."

I think you mean to say Spain never have large numbers of Spanish Protestants to deal with. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make much sense in the context. And I thought Spain was and still is faithfully Catholic.

I opinionate that the reason for the religious unity of Spain was cos of Christian Spain's long struggle to recover the penisular fr the Muslims. The wars to drive the Moors back across Gilbraltar lasted centuries. Foreign threats had always been a good unification factor.

Sodak
Dec 13, 2001, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by knowltok
...Though I do wish there was less acting involved in taking a fall in football (soccer). We all know that they aren't really that hurt.
Ah, players from some countries dive far more often than others! If a defender breathes on an ____ (I won't type it so as to avoid an argument ;) ) attacker, he flies thru the air, writhes in agony, o woe is he! While one from ____ simply bulls thru the boots to his knees, gets the shot off, and just grimaces afterwards. Different playing styles, that's all.

pavelsu
Dec 13, 2001, 01:13 PM
I opinionate that the reason for the religious unity of Spain was cos of Christian Spain's long struggle to recover the penisular fr the Muslims. The wars to drive the Moors back across Gilbraltar lasted centuries. Foreign threats had always been a good unification factor.

During the period of the reconquest, most of the time the Christens, Moslem and even Jewish communities, coexisted in peace, in fact this living together saved to Spain of the medieval darkness that reigned in Europe for centuries.

On the other hand during the centuries of the reconquest the Protestants still did not exist, in consequence there could no be a religious division in the Christian Spain.

kIndal
Dec 13, 2001, 03:44 PM
There is no reason to be Protestant, Spain was the champion of the catholicism in the years of REligious wars so there is no place for Protestantism, Spain continue with the Reconquista with a new crusade agaisnt Ottomans and North African Muslims, the main enemies of Charles I/V and Philip II;) In fact Catholics and Protestants pacted lot of times aginst them.
Too, an important reason (if not the most) for the protestantism was the supporting the independence from HRE (german states), Spain (Netherlands) the Pope (england...) so if Spain was the main power has no reason to separate of the "official" religion.

Arius Mephisto
Dec 13, 2001, 03:49 PM
It's hard to ignore that at it's largest "the sun never set on the British Empire"... generally speaking, British colonies were well managed and profited the motherland greatly....

Whereas the spaniards went for a "smash and grab" style of colonization... come on... knock down opposition... make a few settlements and generally rape the land of all natural resources...

I think the conclusion is clear... not to mention the British surpassed the Spaniards by eliminating the Armada and insuring domination of the seas for a long time to come...

Another point that can be brought up is the loss of colonies... after losing their colonies... look where Spain and England have ended up today... by keeping economic ties strong, England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies... whereas Spain... suffered from massive political instability and never really recovered from the inflationary trends of their colonial days

Magnus
Dec 13, 2001, 04:00 PM
http://www.friesian.com/images/maps/britishv.gif

knowltok
Dec 13, 2001, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by Arius Mephisto


Another point that can be brought up is the loss of colonies... after losing their colonies... look where Spain and England have ended up today... by keeping economic ties strong, England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies... whereas Spain... suffered from massive political instability and never really recovered from the inflationary trends of their colonial days [/B]

Keep in mind that Spain has been seperated from its Imperial heyday a lot longer than the UK has. It has been less than 100 years since the British empire was the strongest in the world. More than 300 for the Spanish.

Arius Mephisto
Dec 13, 2001, 05:55 PM
That's true... but 100 years after it was seperated... Spain was in about the same state of non-relations as it is now....

kIndal
Dec 14, 2001, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by Arius Mephisto
I think the conclusion is clear... not to mention the British surpassed the Spaniards by eliminating the Armada and insuring domination of the seas for a long time to come...

This kind of ignoarnce came from so much Holywood movies and black legend, if you know something about history you would know that Armadas failing had more propagandistic consecuences that maritime ones, you would have to know that a pair of armadas were sent in the next years really bigger than the first one and had to return caused by bad weather, it is a common error of thinking that the failing Armada supposed the Spanish maritime power, please read some info about the number of ships that had Spain in the next years of the Armada and you will see that the Spanish fleets increased their size ;)
And please look in internet for "Blas de Lezo", "Cartagena de Indias" and "the fail of English Armada" and you will learn something more about English maritime superpower ;)

England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies... whereas Spain... suffered from massive political instability and never really recovered from the inflationary trends of their colonial days [/B]

what do you really know about Spanish inversion in South America???you have to know that is the first one, over USAīs one in the last years.And you can see everyyears the conferences of Iberomerican countries:)
It is just a way to see our old colonies as our brothers nd not to continue exploding them as colonies but with the "more polite" name of Commonwealth ;)

Sodak
Dec 14, 2001, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Arius Mephisto
Whereas the spaniards went for a "smash and grab" style of colonization... come on... knock down opposition... make a few settlements and generally rape the land of all natural resources...
... by keeping economic ties strong, England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies...
Uh, find a good map of sub-saharan africa. Look at the railroad system, built mainly by the Brits. Keep an eye on where cities and resources are located. Now try to tell me this was established for any reason other than easy extraction of natural resources. In other words, to "rape the land of all natural resources," to enhance the British economy at the expense of the Africans.

It's already been pointed out that more Spaniards settled the americas, and mixed with the locals, than Brits did. If hundreds of flourishing cities count as "a few settlements," our concepts of this phrase are very different.

kIndal, bienvenido a civfanaticos, amigo! :cool:

kIndal
Dec 14, 2001, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Sodak
kIndal, bienvenido a civfanaticos, amigo! :cool:

Thanks Marquis ;) I hadnīt posted here in a lot of months I hope this changes :D

Vrylakas
Dec 14, 2001, 06:29 PM
Knight-Dragon wrote: I think you mean to say Spain never have large numbers of Spanish Protestants to deal with. Otherwise, the sentence doesn't make much sense in the context. And I thought Spain was and still is faithfully Catholic.

D'oh! Yes, I meant to write "Protestant". Thanks Knight-Dragon. I usually write these things while I'm on my lunch at work, so sometimes I'm not as careful as I should be.

Julien
Dec 16, 2001, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Arius Mephisto


Another point that can be brought up is the loss of colonies... after losing their colonies... look where Spain and England have ended up today... by keeping economic ties strong, England enjoys a profitable relationship with it's former colonies... whereas Spain... suffered from massive political instability and never really recovered from the inflationary trends of their colonial days.

Originally posted by knowltok

Keep in mind that Spain has been seperated from its Imperial heyday a lot longer than the UK has. It has been less than 100 years since the British empire was the strongest in the world. More than 300 for the Spanish.

Originally posted by Arius Mephisto

That's true... but 100 years after it was seperated... Spain was in about the same state of non-relations as it is now....

I think that Spain has been in trouble economically already when the colonisation was flourishing in the 16th century. The country almost went bankrupt several times. After that, the 18th and 19th century were gloomy. The Spanish-American war plunged the country in more recession and political unrest and not until the late Franco's years in post WWII did the country really recover and join up (almost) with its European neighbours. In the 1970's , Spain had the fastest growing economy in Europe.

The loss of the colonies was prompted by the Napoleonic wars and the short French rule over Spain, by the way.

Julien
Dec 16, 2001, 09:46 AM
Originally posted by Sodak
Uh, find a good map of sub-saharan africa. Look at the railroad system, built mainly by the Brits. Keep an eye on where cities and resources are located. Now try to tell me this was established for any reason other than easy extraction of natural resources. In other words, to "rape the land of all natural resources," to enhance the British economy at the expense of the Africans.

But what independant country does not have to rape its land in order to survive anyway ?;)

kIndal
Dec 16, 2001, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by Julien
I think that Spain has been in trouble economically already when the colonisation was flourishing in the 16th century. The country almost went bankrupt several times.

Yes, it is true, it was caused by European wars, diferent wars in the Netherlands were the true reason of the decandence of Spain, it wasted all his fortune and working men fighting against Dutch :(

MrPresident
Jan 29, 2002, 06:30 AM
Uh, find a good map of sub-saharan africa. Look at the railroad system, built mainly by the Brits. Keep an eye on where cities and resources are located. Now try to tell me this was established for any reason other than easy extraction of natural resources. In other words, to "rape the land of all natural resources," to enhance the British economy at the expense of the Africans.

If you look at the history of Nigeria then you can see that the Africans are just as good at raping their land of all natural resources, perhaps better. The British did exploit their colonies and no-one would argue otherwise. However they also helped develop the country, introduce law and order, government organisation and lots of other useful advances. The British were not just in it for themselves they wanted to introduce civilisation to the incivilised. Of course this view has serious flaws in it and with hindsight should not have been persued but do not blame Britain for the current situation in Africa. Remember the US was once a British colony and now it is the most powerful nation on earth.

adamsj
Jan 31, 2002, 05:46 AM
I that the "English Empire" was the British Empire!

The fact that British Empire had at its peak a quarter of the globe, it is enought to say who I voted for.

But I think the Spanish might have gained more from their empire, more treasure for Central and South America!

MrPresident
Jan 31, 2002, 09:27 AM
But I think the Spanish might have gained more from their empire, more treasure for Central and South America!

Sure Spain got lots of treasure but it didn't get anything long-lasting. For example the fall of the British Empire created the Commmonwealth whereas there is no Spanish rival.

fantasy_sports
Jan 31, 2002, 02:33 PM
Spain at its peak(around 1590) included the Americas into the SW US and the whole Iberian Peninsula.

Shaka Naldur
Jan 31, 2002, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by fantasy_sports
Spain at its peak(around 1590) included the Americas into the SW US and the whole Iberian Peninsula.

at it peaks included all the portuguesse colonies also

but the spanish empire wasnīt smartly managed, money isnīt enough to govern such a big empire

something impressive about the spanish empire is how fast they conquered lands and empires that they didnīt even know that existed months before

Sodak
Feb 01, 2002, 08:14 AM
Originally posted by MrPresident
Sure Spain got lots of treasure but it didn't get anything long-lasting. For example the fall of the British Empire created the Commmonwealth whereas there is no Spanish rival.
:confused: How about the 500 million people (or whatever the correct number is) who speak spanish as a first language? Who look to Spain as their parent culture? Sure, there is no political remnant, but their impact has definitely lasted.

aska26
May 24, 2002, 01:50 PM
WE R IN THE pHILIPPINES R NOT ALL FANATICAL WE R ONLY GIVING LIFE TO OUR RICH CULTURE GIVEN BY SPANISH WE R THE ONLY NATION THAT DONT FORGET TO GO TO MASS ALL OTHER CATHOLIC NATIONS R DEFEATED LAZYNESS AND VANITIES THIER EXCHANGE THIER ETERNAL HAPINESS TO TEMPORORAL GOODS THEY DONT EVEN GO TO MASS NOT ALL CATHOLICS R FANATICS
WE R JUST ONLY PRACTICING OUR FAITH DONT EVER INSULT OUR RELIGIOU PRACTICES WE HAVE OWN RIGHT TO EXPRESS OUR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

andycapp
May 24, 2002, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Sodak

:confused: How about the 500 million people (or whatever the correct number is) who speak spanish as a first language? Who look to Spain as their parent culture? Sure, there is no political remnant, but their impact has definitely lasted.

Don't be fooled into believing the propaganda of some Brits about the Commonwealth. Some Brits (and others who pine for the days of Empire) would have you believe that it is the 'British' Commonwealth of Nations and an extension of British influence and power - which is a load of codswallop.

The reality is Britain has one vote like every other member although as much as possible matters are determined by consensus. Britain undoubtably wields much influence within the Commonwealth but as Maggie Thatcher found out if you don't have the numbers you don't get what you want.

Queen Elizabeth II may be the titular head of the Commonwealth (and many of it's members) but she does not rule.

Having said that I think the British Empire and it's effect on the world has undoubtably been greater than the Spanish.

Charles XII
Jun 03, 2002, 02:11 PM
I'd say that the british empire was of vastly more strength being on firm economic grounds rather than the rickety marrige and inflation based Hapsburg empires.:king:

aska26
Jun 06, 2002, 12:55 PM
English Empire destroy our eautiful city manila when they plunder and occupies during 7 yrs of war they have no manners

Demetrias
Jun 06, 2002, 02:52 PM
It was not the Spanish Empire that was quick to Grap up the Empires it never new about. It was those Spanish crooks. its like being proud you have the best crooks in the whole world. Thats all Cortes and Pizzaro were. And Georgia is the Place that England sent its prisoners not New England.

MrPresident
Jun 07, 2002, 08:33 AM
"And Georgia is the Place that England sent its prisoners not New England."

I thought we sent indebted people to Georgia and the prisoners to Australia.

alephz
Jun 10, 2002, 11:31 AM
Spain was the worldīs hegemonic superpower along two centurys or so, including Europe. England never was a hegemonic superpower and never had any power about Europe.