Jump to content

Talk:Spanish Empire

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 218.188.218.151 (talk) at 03:35, 2 May 2019. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


Crown's main source of wealth was not gold and silver

In the second sentence of the second paragraph of the introduction we have this unsupported claim:

"The crown's main source of wealth was from gold and silver mined in Mexico and Peru".

This is wrong. It was an important source of revenue but it was never the main source of revenue, not even close. The main source of wealth for the crown were the taxes levied on its subjects and mainly in its European territories, especially Castile. A check of any quality academic work or a quality secondary source will show this. For example see the graph on page 11 of this study (the "Indies" also includes the precious metals): https://www.economics.uci.edu/files/docs/colloqpapers/s07/Drelichman.pdf

Could some editor please remove the above mentioned sentence from the introduction. Thankyou

  • The importance of different sources revenue must obviously hae varied over the duraiton of the empire. According to Grafe, R., & Irigoin, A. (2012). A stakeholder empire: the political economy of Spanish imperial rule in America 1. The Economic History Review, 65(2), 609-651, in the period 1796-1800 the revenue from New Spain/Mexico alone was three times that of the revenue from Spain itself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
:So in the latter part of the18th century, just before the empire began disintegrating, but certainly not during the so-called Spanish Golden Age in the 16th and 17th centuries when the empire was at the peak of its power and influence. For most of the period, and in the time when it was the dominant power, precious metals were not the main source of crown revenue, other taxes were, so the statement is still highly misleading, even if accurate for a relatively short period.
  • The paper is interesting, but its status is uncertain (this is a draft), and it claims to be overturning the traditional and general view, with new figures, so I think we would want some secondary recognition of this. Johnbod (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is an analysis


Semi-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

Coat of arms of Spanish colonies

The coats of arms of the Spanish Empire's colonies were all of a uniform style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.180.55 (talkcontribs) 10:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done It is not clear if you want this gallery to be included or you want to change something existing in the article. Anatoliatheo (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request

The map should be changed in the violet area ("lost with peace of utrecth in 1700s"). The state of Siena was Not included in the state of presidii, it was annexed by Florence. So that part in central Italy (and in the zoomed area) should be grey except for state of presidi which is very small.

That's a pretty huge mistake.

Barjimoa (talk) 08:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce size of article?

I have removed the "too long" tag calling for the reduction in the size of the article, pending a discussion by editors of this page. It is a long article, but it has subsections that allow readers to navigate it. If after a discussion the consensus is that it should be reduced, then let it be so. Amuseclio (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio[reply]