Magnus
Diplocat
The Spanish plundered and the English colonized. Big difference.
Comparing the English and Spanish Empires
- Thread starter pavelsu
- Start date
K
knowltok
Guest
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.
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.
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
Paha Sapa Papa
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
Paha Sapa Papa
No, actually, I don't get this joke... 
Huh? What are you talking about? The Spanish colonized, too - that's why people of european stock are the majority (or largest minority, after majority blacks) in almost all latin american countries! Did the English not plunder and kill? They most definitely did. The booty was worth less than what the Spanish took, but $ value isn't what separates plunder from some other, more benign, activity.
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
Yo mismo
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 didnt 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, Im 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 its 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.
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 didnt 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, Im 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 its 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.
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.
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.
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
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
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
Yo mismo
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.
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.
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
Warlord
Is Canada not a part of North America anymore?
MrPresident
Anglo-Saxon Liberal
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.
]
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).
K
knowltok2
Guest
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.
Magnus
Diplocat
Brazil was Portuguese.
Similar threads
