Talk:War of the Spanish Succession

---

Too good not to be better

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

• "Louis XIV was the son of a Spanish princess, Anne of Austria": this is an awkward phrase. Wouldn't "Habsburg" do better?
  • She was called "Anne of Austria" because the Habsburg dynasty in Spain was known as the Austrian dynasty. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes John is right.In 1713 he got LAYED by alot of woman. Furthermore not only were they known by everybody in Spain as "Los Austria" but when trying to differentiate them for the other Austrians (those from Austria) they used to refer to the "Austrias menores" and "Austrias mayores" meaning the "minor" and the "mayor."--Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• (caption) " allowing his son to inherit Spain would seriously compromise the balance of power in Europe" Paradoxically, cutting "seriously" would make the compromise more serious.
  • I agree.--Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• "the renunciation was widely seen as invalid" By the French diplomats and lawyers, one assumes: a detail would be good here. The phrase "was widely seeen" should be banned!
  • The renunciation was premised on payment of a dowry that was not paid. Even many of the Spanish didn't really think it was valid any longer. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmmm ... Yes, a detail would be good, but not so sure such phrase is bad.--Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• "in 1697, the issue of the Spanish succession was becoming critical" Charles II's senility should be made explicit.
  • Not senile - he was only 36 years old! Just in very bad health. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• without consulting the Spanish, who vehemently objected" A linked reference to the cortès might be good, if that's what "the Spanish" actually means. (I've inserted a mention of them lower down in the text.)
  • No, it means the Spanish government - the King and his ministers, who did not want to partition the Spanish lands. The Cortes were only Castilian, in any case, so they wouldn't particularly care about what happened to Milan. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• "allotted Austria that which it desired most: the Spanish territories in Italy" Shouldn't they be specified, without too minute detail? I know they come in at the end...
  • Agree. Good idea. --Anagnorisis 21:49, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Though Duke of X is the norm, the form duc de X doesn't take a capital. Perhaps no one cares.
  • We've had some discussion of this. While in French "duc de X" doesn't take a capital, I think, given that it's referring to a person in a context that would take a capital in English, it should probably be capitalized in an English article. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Text is missing from the sentence "Marlborough for Portugal and Savoy had defected to the other side."
• If Blenheim is really the climax, then it's not emphasized strongly enough.
  • I'd say it wasn't the climax... john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• "In 1706, the Earl of Galway led an invasion of Spain " Since Berwick is on the French side, the nature of Galway's force (English? mixed?) might indicate more clearly his British allegiance.
  • I think a mixed allied force, but not sure. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• "(although there was some sense in France that this renunciation was illegal)" Was there even a public whisper of this? Shall I look it up in Saint-Simon?
  • The French foreign minister, Torcy, believed the renunciation was illegal. So did all of Louis XIV's legal experts. It was generally seen to be highly questionable. When Louis XV caught smallpox in 1729, Philip V was sitting at the border waiting to go into France when he inherited it. john k 13:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Language

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

Warbox?

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

Template:Catalan-speaking world

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

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

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

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

Hello Anagnorisis. This historical information, without any doubt, one of the most relevant events for Catalan-speaking world. It's important to read this article if you want to understand current topics such as Catalan language situation or related political issues such as Catalan nationalism. I think that having this template inserted in this article is really a good choice, so readers may learn from related topics in a specific area. I have taken a look at AfricanAmerican template and I find it wonderful, as well. Toniher 14:28, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Toniher. Yes, your points are valid. However I still disagree. Let me try explaining myself better. I will try to give another example of why I still think the argument doesn't work for these articles. I will use the same logic used by streching it a bit and applying it to other cases. Lets say we are reading about the French Revolution. We could argue that because the French Revolution at the time it happened by key in spreading some ideas around the world that became the catalist to the wars of independece in the Americas, then we insert templates of the American countries in it. Or say we are reading an article about the Catholic church, and given that the evangelization policies of the church and the European nations were key in shaping many countries today, we place the Brazilian, Mexican and Philippines templates inside the article about the Catholic church. See? I do not debate the relevance of one set of events to the development of another culture or nation or whatever you want to call it, what I argue about the inclusion of the template. One article about informing people of some facts. The other is about the consequences from those acts. Cause and effect. Perhaps in the effected topics one could talk about the causes, but in the causing articles one does not need to go into all such details. If not, imagine how the Roman empire article would look. Because then by the same rationale we could also have the Catalan speaking world template in the Roman empire article. BTW, I haven't even looked yet at the AfricanAmerican template. :-) --Anagnorisis 17:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello Agnorisis, I understand you are questioning the very templates. Maybe this should be discussed generally in another place :-) I would join the discussion if you propose it somewhere in this wikipedia. Well, of course, entries in templates such be restricted if we do not want to end up in dinosaurs era. Accordingly, Catalan-speaking template has been cleaned from sport teams. Maybe instead of this War, I would rather substitute it with Decretos de Nueva Planta, which might be regarded as a more restricted and specific event centered on Catalan-specific world, as it's done with Treaty of Pyrenees. IMHO, I consider these topics/templates such be included since I think they are useful for interested readers. Toniher 10:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Toniher, I do not think I question the very templates. I just question their inclusion in some articles. By this, I mean that just because events long ago had influence still felt to this day in a region doesn't mean the reverse is that relevant to understanding the article. If anything, it should be the other way around: having in the article about things today (in this case things Catalan), a reference to things from long ago (in this case these wars). I look once again at the template and I do not see why someone wanting to read about historic events taking place in Europe 300 years ago would want a template in the article with links to Castells · Correfocs · Myths and legends · Generalitat de Catalunya · Generalitat Valenciana · Salvador Dalí · Joan Miró, etc. And again, if the issue is one of recency, please allow me to give you another example more recent: imagine the article about WWII. Coudn't by the same reasoning then one want to include there a template about its effect in the Eastern European Countries (and one would then have in that template all the countries, the artists, the legends, etc, of those countries). Now, having WWII had such impact in other things, one could include there a template for the country of Israel and the Jewish culture and another template for France, etc. Or what about having templates for all the countries impacted by the Napeleonic Wars? I am not sure I am explaining myself well, but IMO a template that does not really fit the article and tries to promote someothing else distracts from the actual topic being touched and amounts to a promotional attempt of the other topics (in this case the Catalan world). Again, I could want trying to promote reading all kind of things about the Philippines by inserting a template that draws readers to Filipino artists by inserting a similar template in the article about the Spanish-American War. Of course it would be unfair doing so inless we also included two more templates: one for the Spanish Speaking countries and another for the USA. Yes, templates that would have modern day artists from the USA and Cuba and Spain, and ... Somehow I foresee I will loose this debate. Again, this is all just my POV :-) Cheers. --Anagnorisis 17:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the substitution of Decretos de Nueva Planta in the template and the placement of the template on that article instead of this one would be a good compromise. Anagnorisis, would you also accept that? -- Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure I understood what the proposal is (though it sounds as making sense - whatever it is). Looking at the article Decretos de Nueva Planta, it certainly is very much related to this War. But I am not sure I understand what will go where. Thinking about it, all that is in the Decretos de Nueva Planta article could be at the end of this one as part of the explanation of the inmediate aftermath following the wars; in the "result" section (somehow I find that world 'result' lacking - what about changing it to 'aftermath' or 'consequences'?). --Anagnorisis 04:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Religious motives?

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