Talk:War of the Spanish Succession

Archive 1

One problem

Can you explaine me what's mean secomd and third note. --Vojvodaen 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

It's wrong to say that in one faction was Spain and in the other th Crown of Aragon. The crown of Aragon is correct, but not Spain, but crown of Castille. I change it----Who plays violin 10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 10:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's wrong both ways. Both Philip V and Charles "III" claimed being the true sovereigns of the Spanish Kingdoms. It was not a war between Aragon & Castille but between the Bourbon King and the Hapsburg King. --213.37.240.130 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree with anon: the Crown of Aragon didn't exist politically as such anymore since it merged with the Kingdom of Castile two centuries before. The component realms did exist legally and, indeed, most people in those (with some noticeable exceptions) joined Charles cause, but Charles didn't fight as the king of the Crown of Aragon as opposed to the kingdom of Castile or vice versa, for example, another historic kingdom, Navarre, mostly sided with Phillip. In Spain it was more like a civil war with supporters of either pretender elsewhere, and the pretenders were so to the Kingdom of Spain, not to particular smaller components of it as opposed to others, let alone to the Crown of Aragon, which had actually ceased to exist 200 years before. Mountolive | Talk 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Some problems

Well, the article doesn't have inline references. I could fix that I suppose, but there are a couple of points strike me as rather odd:

• "The latter [northern] theatre proved the more important". Did it? The war over the succession was surely won and lost in Spain.
• "France and Spain, both under Bourbon monarchs, remained allies during the following years". So what about the War of the Quadruple Alliance?

Curious as to what others think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The second point doesn't jibe with what I know of 18th century politics (which isn't much). The first is more my field. The key point to understand is that, despite being called the "War of the Spanish Succession", it should really have been called the "War of putting the kibosh on Louis XIVs ambitions of European Hegemony". Keeping either the Austrians or the French from becoming too powerful, while important, was a side issue. The easiest way into France was (and still is) from the Northeast, despite the fortress belt, and that's where the main armies of the protagonists concentrated (1704 aside). Defeat in Spain for either side would not have ended the war. Defeat on the Northern front (for the French) or on the Danube (for the Austrians) would have. MartinMcCann (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible merge from Queen Anne's War

There has been discussion on Talk:Queen Anne's War regarding the merging of that article into this. I see that this article is Featured (though perhaps not up to current standards?) so I wanted to get a bit more discussion before boldly merging. First, is it a merger a good idea? The Queen Anne's War article is a bit scant and doesn't have references to stand on its own. However I'm only marginally familiar with this topic so I can't be a perfect judge. It seems to me that they are different names for the same thing, and that Queen Anne's War was used to describe the conflict in the North American theatre. I see that this article doesn't much mention the goings-on in North America, and I believe it would be a net plus to include it under a "Queen Anne's War" heading. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -FrankTobia (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't support this solution. This is two different wars in historiography.--Vojvodaen (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Should the QAW article be merged? No. Should this article mention the theatre? Yes. BTW Why is Rákóczi in the infobox? The Hungarian rebels weren't allies with France, no more than the Ottomans were during the NYW. 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, merge is not appropriate. But, this article has no content on Queen Anne's War. I think coverage similar to what the War of the Austrian Succession article gave King George's War in the "War outside Europe" section might be appropriate. On the other hand, the coverage War of the Grand Alliance gave King William's War is too much. BradMajors (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor allies

footnotes 2 and 3, supposedly detailing minor allies in the war, seem to direct to other footnotes. Perhaps that should be fixed. -- Nudve (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Catalan POV

This nonsense in the info box is starting up again. Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Mallorca are now listed as combatants. See the talk archives for the last go-round. Rather than getting in a revert war, I figured to bring it up here. Coemgenus 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. As I said back in the day, maybe a section in the article should be created as a playground for these people's concerns? Mountolive _{all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair} 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't Agree. First of all: Titles of the "suposed" king of Spain:
Nos Don Felipe, por la gracia de Dios, Rey de Castilla, de Leon, de Aragon, de las dos Sicilias, de Jerusalen, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de Sevilla, de Cerdeña, de Córdoba , de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaen, de los Algirbes, de Algecíra, de Gibraltar, de las Islas de Canaria, de las Indias Orientales y Occidentales, Islas y Tierra-Firme del Mar Océano; Archiduque de Austria; Duque de Borgoña, de Brabante, y de Milan; Conde de Habspurg, de Flandes, del Tirol, y de Barcelona; Señor de Vizcaya y de Molina, &c. Source: [[1]]

Now, the titles of the other "suposed king" of Spain:
Nos Carolus Sextus Divina favente Clementia electus Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus, Rex Germaniae, Castellae, Arragonum, Legionis, utriusque Siciliae, Hierusalem, Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Sclavoniae, Navarrae, Granatae, Toleti, Valentiae, Galleciae, Majoricarum, Seviliae, Sardiniae, Cordubae, Corsicae, Murciae, Giennis, Algarbiae, Algezirae, Gibraltaris, Insularum Canariae, & Indiarium ac terrae firmae Maris Oceani, etc;Archidux Austriae; Dux Burgundiae, Brabantia, Mediolani, Stiriae, Carinthiae, Carniolae, Limburgiae, Lucemburgiae, Geldriae, Wirtembergae, superioris et inferioris Silesiae, Calabriae, Athenarum, et Neopatriae;Princeps Sueviae, Cataloniae & Asturiae;Marchio Sacri Romani Imperii, Burgoviae, Moraviae, Superioris et inferioris Lusatiae;Comes Habspurgi, Flandriae, Tyrolis, Ferretis, Kyburgi, Goritiae & Arthesiae,Landgravius Alsatiae;Marchio Oristhani, et Comes Goziani, Namurci, Rossilionis, Cerretaniae; Dominus Marchiae Sclavicae, Portus Naonis, Biscaiae, Molinae, Salinarum, Tripolis, & Mechlinae, Source: [[2]]

As you may see, nor Philip neither Charles, used this imaginarious title of "king of Spain". So we can try to make history-fiction, and calling the Quenn Anne, the Queen of the United Kingdom in 1707, but this is obviously an attack against any sense of intelligence. In 1707 didnt't existed the United Kingdom, as didn't existed the Kingdom of Spain. User:Georg-hessen 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Before you defaced it, there was a footnote explaining the change from England and Scotland to the United Kingdom. Now it's half of a non-functioning footnote. Thanks.

As to your other concerns, Spain had been united under one man since 1516. Yes, he had a lot of titles. So did the Tsars of Russia; we don't list all of them separately each time Russia fought a war. Coemgenus 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

The ref problem has been fixed. Your thanks are welcome.

To the other concern, this one person ruled, for instance, Philip II, ruled in England because he married with Mary Tudor. Do you mean that England and this "suposed kindom of Spain" where then a unique Kingdom. Is this what you mean??? A non-sense reasoning. A unique ruler don't impply a unique kingdom. You may go on with History-fiction, and talking about the Englaspain kingdom under Philip II. Please, we must be seriuos.