Talk:Imperator totius Hispaniae

Hispania is not Spain!

The title of this article is incorrect, even if Imperator totius Hispaniae has been tradicionaly translated as Emperor of all Spain or Emperor of Spain. Notice that, before the emergence of the modern country of Spain (beginning with the union of Castile and Aragon in 1492), the Latin word Hispania, in any of the Iberian Romance languages, either in singular or plural forms (in English: Spain or Spains), was used to refer to the whole of the Iberian Peninsula, and not exclusively, as in modern usage, to the country of Spain, thus excluding Portugal. Iberia or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also. The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not the whole of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian - look up the article on Nationalities in Spain). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula or to Hispania, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, I'm changing the title of this article to the Latin version Imperator totius Hispaniae. The Ogre 15:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I have a big problem with this. Spain is Hispania. Do not be so ignorant as to think that just because Spain and Portugal are separate nations now this has any bearing on the matter. Spain is a direct translation of the Latin term Hispania and is the most commonly used one. Spain should be understood in a historical context as applying to the entire peninsula once called Hispania. This is scholarly usage and your objections are null. I have no big problem with the move to the Latin title, but the use of "Emperor of All Hispania" in articles is absurd and will be reverted soon enough. (I had a somewhat similar conversation a while back at Talk:Kingdom of Galicia.) Srnec 02:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody! Note that Spain is not technically a "translation of Hispania", but its etymological product. Meanwhile, if Srnec is right that Spain, in certain historical contexts, applies to the whole Iberian Peninsula, it is also true that this is an encyclopedia (where the possibility of confusions should especially be avoided), that this encyclopedia's article on Spain concerns only the present day country, that the present meaning of Spain concerns only the present country, that Spaniard denotes only... you know... Spaniards, that there are alternative ways to refer to the whole peninsula (e.g. "Iberian Peninsula"), and that, in a historical context, the use of the Latin word Hispania is easily understood and preferably applied. Velho 19:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

If you were writing in Latin, how would you translate Spain? See [1]. While confusion should be avoided, so should unnatural and invented terminology. I did not make up "Emperor of Spain", but I have never seen "Emperor of All Hispania" in any source. I would use a piped link if I were linking the word "Spain" and referring to something other than the modern nation, though note that the page Spain contains an informative history section. The present meaning of Spain in certain historical contexts is equivalent to Iberia, Christian Iberia, or the Spanish-speaking kingdoms. It is preferable to Iberia in certain contexts for many reasons, familiarity of terminology and avoidance of geographical terms applied to political situations are two. I disagree that "Hispania" is better understood by most readers and how is it preferable, being a word with a Roman political meaning independent of its medieval meaning, just as Spain describes a modern polity which is not identical with the medieval (and is the cause of your objection)? Srnec 02:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The medieval meaning of Hispania was definitely not independent from its Roman meaning. Rather, it was the continuation of it. This only changed when the United Kingdom of Castile, Navarre and Aragon was formed in the 15th century. The only reason why "Spain" is considered equivalent to "Iberian Peninsula" in historical periods which precede the 15th century is the inertia of historians. Having said this, I have no objection to translating the phrase Imperator totius Hispaniae as "Emperor of all Spain". It made sense at the time, and foreshadowed the ambitions of the Catholic monarchs which eventually founded the real Spain. FilipeS 15:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The title should be translated as "High King of [All] Iberia"; anything else is misleading. Hispania is not Spain in modern English, but Iberia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of how it should be translated, there is the question of how it is translated. The term "Spain" is commonly (ubiquitously) used in modern scholarship to refer to Iberia in the Middle Ages. Spain is a cognate and etymological descendant of Hispania, which originally referred to the entire peninsula. Srnec 06:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Well... from now on I shall call England to the whole of Britain, as many in Portugal do... The Ogre 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean and I don't see why the habits of those in Portugal matter here. Do you mean that you will call Britain "England"? The fact is that "Spain" in a historical context refers to the whole of Iberia, just like England would include Wales in some contexts. The inability to realise that current terminology is not universally applicable back through time is laughable. Tibet is now politically a part of China. Should we refer to Tibet in the past as being a part of China? Portugal is only an independent nation from the mid-12th century and it is no more distinct from any other kingdom of the peninsula than those kingdoms were from each other until the 16th century. Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre, Castile-León, Valencia, and Portugal were pretty well distinct kingdoms. Why does the last one stand out? Because it just so happened to avoid being attached to Spain after 1640 and escaped again during the Napoleonic Wars? Because it's language is different? No more different (probably less, in fact) than Catalan is from Castilian. Certainly less different than Basque! So what is your point? Just because Portugal and Spain are completely different entitites today and the nomenclature is anchored in the presumptiveness of the Castilian-Aragonese monarchs does not have a bearing on this historical situation. In fact, it is illustrative of the modern presumptiveness of using the term "Hispania" (España, Spain) for only a part of Hispania that even the Leonese monarchs, who considered themselves the heirs of the Visigothic monarchs who ruled all Hispania, used an imperial title that was unrelated to political reality. Srnec 22:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"and escaped again during the Napoleonic Wars?"

lol

" Why does the last one stand out? "

Because Portugal its an Independent Nation with more than 900 years of independance(and with ancestry in Lusitania, Gallaecia, Suevic kingdom and Braga as its capital, the same city wich claim eclesiatic and political supremacy prerrogativs against Toledo and Compostela supremact attempts in the time of the Count Henry and his son King Afonso Henriques. (and the previous C. of Portucale was from 868)

See in XVI Epic: Noble "Hespanha", "De diferentes nações se engrandece" - "Os Lusiadas"

Portugal, since 1139 was a nation completly separeted from Castile, Aragon and Navarre etc.(some times already called Kingdom "Hispaniae" after Catholic kings around 1512 and oficial "Hispania" or "Spain" only after 1715 - Nueva Planta) much centuries before 1580 and since 1640 to nowdays(and in those 60 years was only a Crown union with sep. Adm. for the diverse kingdoms and its empires or possessions), so what you mean as "again" or "napoleonic wars"? Avoid spanish pseudo-nacionalistic "idiocracy" agenda please, even more if you haven´t nothing to do with such agenda(This advice is for all, no matter the nationality).

Old English("Germanic language") also used "Hispania" I think from latin Hispaniae, wich became Spain - as Espain and other names in Gaelic("Celtic") languages also in northen and british geography. And to avoid confusion with modern political Spain we should write Hispania even in english(but this last word shall be to English language Investigators and filologists). Any way, in any case aply the latin term in "italic" as a second solution... as it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 18:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but you didn't get it. The point was that Portugal is no different from Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre, Valencia, etc. until all those kingdoms came under one Crown in the early sixteenth century. It was less than a lifetime between the formation of Spain (as a country, as we understand it looking back five hundred years) and the addition of Portugal to the Spanish Crown. When Portugal regained independence in 1640, who could have foreseen that only those two entities, Spain and Portugal, would continue to exist for 350 years? My whole point was that the Iberian peninsula cannot be seen as "Spain and Portugal" until the Enlightenment at the earliest. In the Middle Ages there was nothing to unite Catalonia and Galicia more strongly than Galicia and Portugal. I think this should be obvious, yet Galicia and Catalonia ended up being part of the same nation (and nationalist Spaniards have arisen in both), while Portugal managed to avoid union with either. But this is all post-medieval. When talking of the Middle Ages we cannot use "Spain" to mean "Iberia minus Portugal", for that would be a lie. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"was that Portugal is no different from Aragon, Catalonia, Navarre, Valencia, etc." we understand your right point, altough Portugal have a sense of "patria" and "nation" since Medieval chronistes, as Fernão Lopes and others(discriptions of the Country and its People) with some Iberian near paralels also with its same own sense, but not in all those Kigdoms within the Crowns of Castile or Aragon, Crowns each one as whole had also some of that sense in lower Midle Ages. Transiion to modern Era: The first great(with that greateness) Epic dedicated to one nationality, to one "Patria", to a "Nação" on that period of "life time"(1512-1580) in the years 1550s-1572 in Europe was "Os Lusíadas" altough the "Cronica de Clarimundo"(Romance), "Decadas da Asia"(History) and many other cronicles and epics of that time in Portugal had all that same national goal, amongst many others.

The first Castilian grammar(XV(XVI) centuries), the first Portuguese grammar(XVI cent.)

On the subject of the article: that "Spain" in Middle ages was a geographic term and this "Spain" today is a country, a state, even a nation for some or many spaniards, any way, is a state as others in Europe, in Iberian P. and outside Iberian Peninsula in Europe.

We need the term "Hispania" for Middle Ages to avoid confusion with modern Spain - common sense, as the ancient Iberia in a modern and nowadays sense to geography. Altough in Leovigildo times, after the conquest of Suebi Kingdom of Gallaecia(and northen Lusitania), the Visigotic King in respect to western Suevic Kingdom indentity diferent of that of Visigothic Hispania, wrote: “Leovigildus Rex Gallaecia, Hispania et Gallia Narbonensis”, and the Churchs “In provinciam Galliae vel Galliciae atque in omnes provincias Hispaniae” and the Churchs of “Spaniae, Galliae vel Galliciae”. This Hispania here was not all Iberian Peninsula, as for the Muslims Al-Jalica(Galicia-northwest versus Al-Andaluz-Spania/Isbania, the most part at that time). Of course these were some exceptions to the use of the common name of Hispania/Iberia for the Iberian Peninsula. But this is another point. Avoid confusion between diferent identities for the readers. This is the point here.

---

About 1580-1640 - Habsburg union, old Hispania it is yet a geographic-Peninsula name, above all for Portuguese People, but Habsburgs recognize sometimes the difference between the Crowns of Castile, Aragon, Navarre and Granada(even with its own separate states, languages and law each one) as new homeland, Spain, for one side; and for another side, the rest of european and world realms and principates under its Habsburg crown, among them Portugal (until 1640), even though it is an nation of western Iberian P..

From some Seals and Portraits of Philip II and I:

"PHILIPPUS II HISPANIAR ET LUSITANIAE REX DIVI CAROLI V...ISABELLA EMANUELIS LUSITANIAE REGIS F. CAROLI V IMP. MAX. UXOR"

"PHILIPPUS DEI GRATIA REX HISPANIARVM VTRIVSQVE SICILIAE HIERVSALEM ET PORTVGALLIAE"

Spain derives from Hispania etymologically, no doubt about it. The question is another: it is necessary to distinguish the ancient Hispania-Iberian Peninsula/ Roman Hispania/ Suebi and Visigothic Hispania etc.of the the current Spain, without confusion. "Hispania" is a good solution.

King of Spain as modern Imperator totius Hispaniae

Is there any documented evidence that the modern title King of Spain is not in fact analogous to the Imperial title? Could not the adoption of King of Spain in the 18th century be in fact the ressurection of the imperial title in light of the fact that even in the 12th and 13th century they used the latin title "King"/ "Queen" of Spain? So far in my research I have not found evidence that it is not.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 10:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Additional references

Menendez Pidal, 1950, provides numerous additional examples of the Imperial title in use. I am not familiar enough with the more recent work to know whether this material is no longer thought reliable, but he shows the imperial title being used for Alfonso III (whose "Adelfonsus in omni Spania regnaturus" must be considered as equivalent), Ordono II, Ramiro II, Ordono III, etc. Maybe someone else can take a look at this. He also suggests that the reference to Sancho I as emperor is possible due to confusion with Sancho III (the Roda transcript dating to after the reign of the latter), a possibility that perhaps merits mention, as perhaps do the erroneous transcripts calling Garcia Fernandez of Castile emperor. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting you should bring this up, I have been preparing a rewrite of this article offline since my little discussion with Drachenfyre a few months back. Unfortunately computer issues and real life have slowed the pace of my work and there is a tonne of stuff to check out before the article is comprehensive (and thus before it's in good enough shape to upload). I have to make a trip to the library to read Pidal. I will see if I can make a presentable draft of what I have so far in the near future, so that other editors can work on it as well. —Srnec (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The relevant part of Menendez Pidal is available here:

http://www.cepc.es/rap/Publicaciones/Revistas/2/REP_049_016.pdf

I started to extract some of the information and reedit the article but ran out of time and, as I said, did not have access to the newer writings on the subject. Agricolae (talk) 03:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Great Improvement

Srnec, what an impressive and great improvement for the article!!! Thank you very much! I have made a few minor edits and one minor reformatting (adding Urraca to the line of rulers from Leon). Urraca's use of the title could be explored a bit more too. But in general I'm greatly impressed and thankful for your contrabutions!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with putting Urraca under the rulers of Castile section, but I don't understand why you insist on talking about Alfonso and Galicia, which is not strictly relevant. In the process of your editing you removed I think two sourced dates, which misleads the reader concerning what the cited sources say. Further, your citations of Reilly lack page numbers, but I have added some of his information about Urraca's titles to her section. If you add more information, make sure not to remove that which is already properly cited and cite your own properly, i.e. in accordance with the format already used throughout the article and with page numbers (e.g. "Reilly 1982, 244"). —Srnec (talk) 22:00, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No problem. You did a great job. The removal of cited sources was compleatly in error and I do apologize. My copy of Reilly's work doesn't have page numbers as it was downloaded from the internet, so my page numbers may not corrospond to the actual book published. Yet it is there. I do not see how the information about Alfonso VII in Galacia is irrelevant, and its absence leaves the reader with the impression that he was all but independent of his mother, which was not the case. From my perspective, it is important to note for the reader that he was in fact a vassal of his mother, and that it was significant that he was granted the rule of Toledo when he started to first use the imperial title and under the direct tutalage of Urraca's chief advisor, the Archbishop of Toledo. That dispite one or two disagreements between the two, they (mother and son) were in accord rather then not. In my opinion, leaving this information out leaves the impression that they were at odds and always in conflict. Prehaps it may be reworded and I am open to that.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

I have moved this article because its title was just not right, but I'm none too sure about my chosen destination. I just translated the term that I find as the title of two comprehensive articles on the subject and its historiography, one in Italian and one in Spanish. I'd love to see better suggestions. —Srnec (talk) 04:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ive been pondering the article's title since you changed it Srnec. I think I am of the opinion that the title of the article should be Emperor of Spain. There is currently not any other article by that title, and the opening text offers context of the title as disctinctly midieval. What do you think?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk

That's the title I created this article under some years ago. It was moved within twelve hours to accommodate the sensitivities of the Portuguese. Srnec (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that since this article is about the title, it should be entitled such. As a comparison, the similar title "British Emperor" also exists. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sensitivity to the Protuguese notwithstanding, perhaps Emperor of Spain (Mideival), or Spanish Emperor (Mideival). On a side note, I have not seen anything that does not lead me to concreatly put away the idea that the modern King 'of Spain' instituted in the 19th century is not indeed a re-envocation of this mideival title and claim. Have you been able to find something which states that it is not?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:00, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As in Germany, Britain, Italy and Russia, so in "Spain" [=Iberia] it is the ancient and medieval concepts that are used as the ideological blueprint of the modern nation. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the current title. I much prefer Emperor of Spain. Can we move it now? Srnec (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind the current title, nor the one you suggest. Emperor of Spain or Emperor of Iberia (yes Iberia is not cognate with Hispania like "Spain" is, but it is closer semantically) would be fine with me too [speaking only for myself]. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see we have come full circle. My vote of corse is Emperor of Spain, or Emperor of All the Spains, rather then the latin title, as this is an English language wiki. The Latin version of the title can go into the text, imho.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

A note: in the 14th century, the translation "Emperador de España" (Emperor of Spain) was already used:

• D. Alfonso heredó el regno, è fue alzado Emperador de España (Chronicle of Cardeña, 1327)
• Don Alfonso, por la gracia de Dios, emperador de España (Fuero of Guadalajara, 1337)

Durero (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So, have we come to a consensus about the title? Change it to Emperor of Spain? Or Emperor of All Spain?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You know my opinion... The title should remain as it is. Calling it Emperor of Spain will just add to the confusion between modern Spain and any of the uses of the word Spain (and its cognates) for former historical periods. Having said this, if the title is to be changed, then it should be to Emperor of All the Spains. The Ogre (talk) 11:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

"Emperor of all the Spains" (Imperator totarum Hispaniarum if I'm not mistaken) sounds preposterous. As far as I know, there was only one Hispania. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No, in fact there were several: Hispania Citerior, Hispania Ulterior, Hispania Baetica, Hispania Lusitania, Hispania Tarraconensis, Hispania Balearica, Hispania Carthaginiensis, Hispania Gallaecia! Of course they were all part of Hispania. The Ogre (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If the article explains the medieval meaning of "Spain" there won't be confusion. "Emperor of Spain" is correct. Durero (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't individual Hispaniae, and a medieval monarch didn't rule them. Best stick to the relevant period anyways ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems the consensus gravitates towards Emperor of Spain. I agree that the article should clearly different between the Spain/Iberia of the title Emperor of Spain, and the modern kingdom of Spain. But to be honest, I have not seen any ... text which states that the historic Spain/Iberia is not indeed the same Spain as is the modern nation. I've looked but there doesn't seem to be any sources that comment one way or another regarding the imperial title and the modern King of Spain title... perhaps the modern title 'King of Spain' is in fact meant to hearken back to the Imperial title to some extent? While I acknowledge that there may be a difference, I would like to see text that states the imperial title and the modern title king of Spain does not in fact refer to the same location ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if the article is renamed Emperor of Spain, what you are proposing is exactly what should not happen. There is not direct historical continuity between both titles, even if the Hispanic Monarchy always tried to claim legitimacy back to the Visigoths. If we go along those lines, you'll just fall into a Spanish-centred nationalist view as the ones defended during Franco's times!! The Reconquista produced the emergence of several Christian kingdoms; of those, several amalgamated along the centuries into an entity that claimed the former designation; this claim does not produce an identity between different historical periods; if medieval Spain and modern Spain are the same entity, then Portugal is the anomaly that should have been (notice the normative stride!!) integrated into the larger ensemble (this was what the upholders of Castillian supremacy always said about not only Portugal, but Catalonia, etc.). Anyway, this article is about the medieval title, not about the fantasmatical continuities between the modern Spanish monarchy and previous historical realities. The Ogre (talk) 13:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

With respect Ogre, the modern King of Spain does trace their origin back to Visigoth Spain, as the title King of Leon and the subsidary title Prince of Asturias make evident. Leon was one of the former imperial capitals of the Visigoths, while the title Asturias became Leon once that city had been reconqured/liberated. Lastly, when Toledo was recaptured for Leon-Castille, also provided further basis for those rulers of Leon-Castille to claim the imperial title. This is the source of the Kings of Leon-Castille, and later Spain, in claiming the imperial title in the first place. It has not been sourced in English publications one way or another if the historic title Emperor of Spain is not also today manifest in the title King of Spain. Since it has not been sourced one way or another, I do not necessarily advocate one way or another its inclusion in this text, though leave the subject open pending further published sources which state that the modern title 'King of Spain' is not meant to also evoke the Visigothic Imperial Title.

Just because there is an historic imperial title which may also be evident in the kingship title of Spain, that does not mean that Portugal, or Catolonia, or Navarra, should be subject to the ruler of that said title. Those countries are not anomalies. This article should be named Emperor of Spain, or Emperor of All Spain. And even those rulers who bore the title Emperor of Spain make clear, those regions already had inherit local national idenity that could not and should not be disrespected.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Indented title.

Yeah, the title is indented and I dont know why. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 16:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Imperator totius Hispaniae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720145339/http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/WEB/archivos/respublica/hispana/documento2.pdf to http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/WEB/archivos/respublica/hispana/documento2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:44, 12 November 2017 (UTC)