Talk:Spanish Empire

War of Jenkins Ear

The article says "The British suffered 25,000 dead or wounded and lost nearly 5,000 ships during the war". This appears to misinterpret the source cited as listing solely British casualties rather than the total casualties on both sides. The Wikipedia article on the war seems to agree that the total casualties of the war were 25,000 with British casualties being 20,000.

Also, 5000 ships lost seems like a ridiculous figure and is most likely a typo in the source, since it's unlikely the British even had 5000 ships, let alone lost that many. Such a number would make it one of the biggest naval wars in history, rather than a largely forgotten colonial squabble of little significance. The wikipedia article on the war gives British ship losses as 407, and it seems likely that the cited source contains a typo and is supposed to be 500 (and, as with the previous figure, is meant to be the total of both sides' losses rather than just British losses).

Can someone who is able to edit the article fix this? 2A00:23A8:4C05:DB01:F970:34E:9161:D494 (talk) 12:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Citation needed on Cortes directing burning of Aztec documents and cultural relics

Hi, I have never seen any evidence of Cortés himself conducting widespread, intentional cultural destruction in Mexico- can you please provide a citation for the following statement: "Cortés directed the burning of Aztec books and records, destroyed monuments, removed idols from temples, and purged the sites of sacrificial remnants to prepare the locations for Catholic worship." 142.180.3.116 (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Dates

Fun fact, according to the dates of the Spanish Empire (1492-1976), both Spanish Republics (First Republic 1873-74 and Second Republic 1931-39) and the Francoist dictatorship were Imperial too, so the titles Hispanic / Catholic Monarchy should be used while keeping in mind the dates.

Plus the map is fake. 83.58.148.140 (talk) 20:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Map (yes, again again again again) : On the Mapuche and Argentina

The current map is just incorrect. The Mapuche were never subjugated, and south of Argentina and Chile was never conquered by the Spaniards. We need a map that recognises this recognised fact. This problem exists with many maps of the Spanish empire, anachronistic or not: They show the territories claimed by the Spanish Empire, not those really controlled by it. 80.187.121.197 (talk) 18:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So, no one cares when it's about the Mapuche, and everyone cares when it's about Portugal, apparently, judging by this talk page's archives. This map of Philip the second's reign is more accurate. 80.187.68.41 (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hegemony

Hello, I think it's more than necessary to add a mention to the page of the clear hegemony that the Spanish Empire maintained during the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, which ended after the Treaty of the Pyrenees in 1659 in favor of France. I think it could be written something like this: "It was undoubtedly the most powerful and hegemonic empire of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century, becoming known as "The empire where the sun never sets." If the British Empire edition states, "At its height in the 19th and early 20th centuries, it became the largest empire in history and, for a century, was the foremost global power," why not in the Spanish Empire edition? It is clear that it was also the most important empire of the 16th century and the first half of the 17th century. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 09:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for opening a discussion here as I advised[1], please achieve consensus here before attempting to reintroduce material other editors have already reverted, like you just did here. See WP:STATUSQUO.

I have no opinion on this topic aside from that the edit war needs to stop. Pinging recent editors to this discussion: @Barjimoa @Roger 8 Roger @JaierRT @Inherli fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 09:53, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Okay, the discussion is underway. I invite people to respond so we can reach an agreement. My position is clear enough. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 10:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

The intro is fine as it is, it already (and correctly) says the Spanish empire was one of the most significant and powerful of its time and of all time. I am against using hyperbolic claims such as "THE most powerful" or "without a doubt had a clear hegemony" etc. First, in its time there were other empires just as significant (such as the Ottoman empire, the Chinese empire under the Ming dynasty etc. etc.). Secondly, it's POV and not encyclopedic language.Barjimoa (talk) 10:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

By that rule of thumb, why does the British Empire's website mention that it was the most powerful empire in the world for a century? You've mentioned non-Western empires, and on top of that, one (the Ottoman Empire) that the Spanish Empire managed to defeat, thus preventing it from devastating and invading half of Europe? And on the other hand, why don't you add, as you said, "(and of all time)" after "its time," if it's true? DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Instead of pointlessly editing the page, I'd like people to respond to this discussion so we can come to an agreement. DanielG.M.S.S.N (talk) 11:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Unfortunately the creator of this discussion has since been banned for two weeks for edit warring. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2025 (UTC)