Talk:Franco-Spanish War (1635–1659)

Untitled

This article still needs an introductory summary giving context. --Wetman 17:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

yeh

It damn well needs an introduction - it starts of as if the reader knows some background to the war. Tourskin.

Stalemate?

Both the French [1]] and Spanish [2] versions of this article describe the war as ending in a French victory. That seems like a more logical conclusion than that it was a stalemate, as we are claiming. While it's true that it was not necessarily a crushing defeat for Spain, the ultimate result was that it was forced to cede some territories (Artois, Roussillon and some cities like Thionville) to France, while France did not give up any of its pre-war territory, only some of its conquests. Also, Philip IV was forced to consent to his daughter's marriage to Louis XIV and pay a dowry. For all that to occur following a stalemate seems curious. 108.254.160.23 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like this was the work of a single editor pushing his POVs. Aozyk (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Territorial losses aren't necessarily a signal of defeat, and marriages with members of the French Royal family had been a policy for decades in Spain: Philip II and Philip IV, for instance, had married to French princesses. It's very common to extrapolate the result of the Battle of the Dunes to the whole conflict, but even if France won the war in the Netherlands, it was defeated at the much forgotten fronts of Catalonia and Italy. In fact, the last battle of the war, fought at Camprodón, in Catalonia, ended with the destruction of the French army of the province. As I've tried to portray in the article, the war's result was inconclusive and neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage. It was some sort of 'to be continued'. Weymar Horren (talk) 05:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Territorial losses are not necessary a sign of defeat, as seen in the Smolensk War of Ifni War. However, given that Spain also lost control of the Kingdom of Portugal, and struggled to keep control of Catalonia and Naples, was forced to recognise the independence of the Netherlands (perhaps not only due to this war, but mostly due to it) and eventually went into a terminal decline for the rest of the Century. I would consider it to be a French victory. (talk) 21:07 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, military stalemate made no sense, Spain lost territories in the war, even if it prevented further losses. Dona Deda (talk) 08:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

New combatant

Hi, I added the Principality of Catalonia as a combatant in the French side, but not for the period between 1641-1652, in which it was incorporated to the French Crown, but in fact for the period of 1640 and 1641. In the 7 of September of 1640, by the Pact of Ceret (Rousillon), the Generalitat of Catalonia agreed with France the secession of the Principality from the Monarchy of Spain and the participation in the war as an allied of France, as well French military aid. The General Estates of Catalonia accepted this pact few days later, and until the 23 of January of 1641 it was officialy a separate member of the fight. It was this day when the Catalan Republic (17-23 Jaunary) was incorporated to the Monarchy of France, officialiy since the Pact of Péronne (19 of September).--Jacobí (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Result

Template:Infobox military conflict

• result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

Then you can write something useful or we keep this going forever. Bertdrunk (talk) 00:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Various edits by 46.222.215.189

Re recent changes;

(1) I refer you to Wikipedia guidelines on Lead paragraphs, which include the following; (a) keep references to a minimum, if used at all. (b) Use the short "name" format for any references in the lead. (c) There should not be any references in the lead which have not first been used in the body.

(2) Far from being subjective, I am in fact following Wikipedia guidelines;

(3) The quotes themselves are subjective; if you want to, you can include them at the Aftermath section, as I have done.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Robin:

Please please please read the guidelines on the Lead. That would save us both a lot of time, because the issue seems to be where they are, not what they are. Since someone else also reversed your edits, I'm clearly not the only editor who thinks that.

(1) a) and b): Yes, I agree to somehow reduce the sources, including their format name. c) The body of the article is in tune with the statement that France obtained some minor territories from Spain and that the war itself ended without great changes with the signing of the Treaty of the Pyrenees. There was no official winner of the war, so it is unfinished. It is also stated in the Lead and in the body of the article that after the war Spain began its decline due to economic and military management problems. Ok, but why are you telling me this? It is stated in the article

(2)You cannot delete entire phrases supported by sources because they are very numerous or because they have a long name. Instead of deleting them, try to fix them properly.No, but according to Wikipedia guidelines, I can remove them from the Lead. If you disagree with those guidelines, please feel free to tell the Administrators to fix them

(3) The quotes are very clear, and many are from universities. I agree with the section, but without deleting content from the Lead. :::At no point, have I suggested they're unreliable; but they're all saying pretty much the same thing, and I used two of them already. And with respect, I don't need you to agree on their removal from the Lead, because (and I may have said this already), I'm following Wikipedia guidelines.

Many thanks. 46.222.215.189 (talk) 21:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

I have added the content in the section, and I have shortened the sources of the Lead. 46.222.215.189 (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

As requested above, I have now 'fixed them properly'; since many of the quotes are effectively saying the same thing, I have condensed.

I have also converted them to sfn, as has been used on the 35 other sources in the article, and provided some background on who they are. I'm not sure why that needed to be done by me.

Finally, I have contacted Professors Parrott and Stradling to ask if they would kindly take a look at the article and see what's missing. So I suggest holding off until then. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

To summarise;

- The Lead has been written in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines; despite being asked to read them, then tell me which they disagree with, the editor has now re-inserted them six times, while telling me I'm wrong. I'm not sure why that is proving so difficult;

- I have included the quotes in a separate section, in the body of the article; apparently this isn't good enough.

- Contrary to the claim that the content has been 'deleted', it has been moved; it appears therefore the issue is not what, but whether it should be in the Lead.

- We have now wasted considerable time on this, hence I'm applying for a ruling. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:11, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Added several improvements

I added several improvements, including making the list of combatants look a lot neater and mentioned which dates the countries fought in (previously they were all clumped in, in a mess without dates provided so it looked like they were all fighting together with France for the entire war). I also added the Republic of Naples as a belligerent in 1647-1648, due to a revolt happening in the Kingdom, and mentioned that the war was apart of the Thirty Years War. Azaan H 12:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative medium; that means edits can/should be discussed.

Belligerent is a technical and legal term, usually a recognised and distinct political entity - areas in revolt are not usually considered as such (because otherwise its a long list eg Camisards, Waldensians etc etc). The Republic wasn't even the Kingdom of Naples - simply the city in revolt against the rest of the kingdom, which collapsed within six months. The Wikipedia article on it is factually wrong on several counts, maybe you fancy updating it.

There are a number of reasons why Naples has never been listed as a belligerent in this article, not just editors overlooking it; the most important being it doesn't appear as such in any historical source I've encountered (Note; ie listed as a 'Belligerent', not if its mentioned). A common way to check is whether they signed treaties ending the war. Whether you agree or not, Wikipedia follows the generally accepted line.

This is why I've removed it; if you want to put it back in, then first produce a reference that supports the argument it is a belligerent. I don't think you'll find one, but that shouldn't stop you.

I have also removed Catalonia for the same reasons; usually doing so results in abuse from Catalonian separatists, but I'll try again. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks. Catalonia being a belligerent wasn't something I added, and I just used the logic of Catalonia being on the list of combatants to put Naples on it too. Azaan H 11:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

I realise that - just wanted to explain why its there :). I always appreciate changes even if I don't agree because it inspires me to take another look at the article - you'll notice I've made quite a few edits, so thanks for that. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah thanks again. I also checked at the article for the Republic of Naples and it did indeed give no citations. But do you think the Results section could include more detail? Perhaps not French Victory (as the Spanish version of this article claims) but merely something like Decline of Spain. Spanish colonies lost to England could also be included Azaan H 17:12, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents edits

As a starting point, this article has been worked on for some time, and it's not as if no one's considered the question 'Who is a belligerent?' before. I think its reasonable to ask before dramatically changing the Infobox.

Belligerent is defined as a recognised sovereign entity; it therefore excludes English Royalists, Catalans and other insurgents.

Co-belligerence is a sovereign state dating without a formal treaty of alliance - Portugal.

Modena etc etc may have been allies at one time of one or both of France and Spain, but the war in Italy was part of the 30 Years War, not the Franco-Spanish. You can argue (as historians do) on the exact cut off, but that's the accepted format. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Thought I'd add this, because its a complex question :).

First, I do accept the complexity of distinguishing between various wars; many modern historians argue such distinctions are artificial and we should view them all as one contest. However, that seems a way off.

I hope the split between ‘Belligerent’ and ‘Co-belligerent’ makes sense. The other way to differentiate is the cause; for example, the War of the Mantuan Succession, or Piedmontese Civil War, were dynastic succession disputes, with Spain and France taking opposite sides. Parma asked for French help specifically to support their territorial ambitions in Northern Italy. While related to the wider struggle, they are not actually part of the 1635-1659 Franco-Spanish War.

Personally, I’m not convinced by the inclusion of either the Dutch or the Empire, since they were arguably part of the 30 Years War (a position taken by Wilson in his history of the 30 Years War). Others do, so its an open question.

Robinvp11 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

pardon before, but as far i know, Reapers' War which involving the Catalans and the French cooperations seems agreed as the extention of this conflict. to be honest i still dont understand with your reasoning removing the Catalonian as belligerent faction in this page. their identity is clear here

Ahendra (talk) 12:00, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I would change the belligerents because, the revolters from Catalonia, first are farmers, after this firsts steps the authorities take the control. Then first, it's a fight between the government of Catalonia against the crown. The Generalitat searching some help, goes to the king of France and ask to be the king. Then I would add the catalans as belligerents. It that time, Spain did not exist, we had different countries with a same king. It's this case. Philip IV of Castile it's the ruler over the country, with the title of Count of Barcelona.Alberttf (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The question of including Catalonia as a separate belligerent in this war has come up before;

In this period, Catalonia was part of the Crown of Aragon and provinces in rebellion against the central government are not generally considered 'Belligerents'. The same applies to French rebels led by Conde who fought for Spain

This applies to the Franco-Spanish War; the article on the Reapers War includes Catalonia as a separate Belligerent. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Wanted to explain and defend some additions. Mantua was an active ally of France in the early part of the war sending troops to assist the Duke of Parma and later defending Casale as a French ally against a Spanish attack. Hesse Kassel is definitely harder but my explanation is that they allied with the French and backed by French troops campaigned against the Spanish garrisons in julich in the early 1640s as neither the Austrian Habsburg or bavarians tended to these areas. I added the duchy of bouillon as part like the duchy of Modena it is a part of the Holy Roman Empire NOT France. And the Duke in 1641 had lost his French military position (as well as Dutch) in 1637 during a failed plot. I also added various Swiss states as they backed both the Spanish and the French in varying capacities early on. 2601:155:500:6BF0:15C0:E52C:3157:4E36 (talk) 05:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I think, there were several misunderstandings, both in terms of chronology and the definition of a Belligerent.

Mantua fought with France in the War of the Mantuan Succesion. Afterwards, it merely provided support to French allies in Italy. Support alone, even the hiring out of mercenaries, does not qualify for the status of Belligerent. And when Spain under the Marquis of Caracena finally captured Casale in 1652 (not yet mentioned in this article, partly because there is few literature to the Italian war theatre), it was even supported by Mantuan troops under de:Camillo Gonzaga (not on behalf of aiding Spain but to neutralize Mantuan territory; the fortress was then garrisoned by Mantuan troops).

Hesse-Kassel never fought directly against Spanish troops, they fought in the Duchy of Jülich, but not against Spanish garrisons but against the Elector of Cologne and the Westphalian corps of the Imperial army under Hatzfeld and Lamboy. Hesse-Kassel fought in alliance with France, but not in this war.

Bouillon was both a French rebel and an Imperial Prince, I will not remove him but I'm interested in the opinion of others. At least the Duke of Bouillon's military efforts were significant in this war through the Battle of La Marfée.

"Various Swiss states" is to unspecific and backing "in varying capacities" is not what Belligerent means. Control of the Valtellina was significant because of the Spanish Road. But that was arguably a separate war. And "Various Swiss states" were not the belligerents. Palastwache (talk) 13:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)