Talk:Portuguese Restoration War

Pictures
Why is it that in a major article about a war between Spain and Portugal, there is but ONE picture of a Spanish leader, and (besides Portuguese)many more pictures of French, English, and Dutch leaders who had much less to do with the war?76.110.169.129 (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

My edits
1. While it is true that de jure Spain was a union of crowns and kingdoms, the term Spain is the accepted term for the country since the rule of Carlos I and is used virtually everywhere in the academic sources. The same applies to Wikipedia and I don't see why there should be an exception for that article.

2. The status of Portugal within the Spanish Monarchy did not differ to that of Castilla or Aragon. During that period Portugal=Castilla=Aragon but Portugal≠Spain. Therefore, there is nothing dual in the Monarchy and I removed that word.

3. It is important to note in the lead Spain's involvement in the two major wars that it lead during certain periods of the Portuguese Restoration War and which affected Spain's capabilities during the war with Portugal.

Regards, --Gligan (talk) 12:04, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How to refer to the Habsburg kings
I think it's super, super confusing to refer to the Habsburg kings by their Portuguese numbering. In basically all contexts in English, we talk about Philip III and Philip IV, not Philip II and Philip III. john k (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Flag of France (and Britain, Netherlands etc.)
I removed the flag of France placed by an editor. Of course, is subject to revision, if placed with additive note (The period and clear aid), and perhaps should be there, but with these conditions, because there was some human and/or material support (by France, England and Netherlands(not overseas) during a period each one), the years or time of support, and/or diplomatic aid - the years of French approaching Spain and when the French abandoned Portugal etc. (who shot these periods of time).

Neither France nor England were combatants in this war. The war took 28 years. There was human presence and aid, as material and some economic support to the Portuguese army and Portugal (by those countries and at Portuguese request) in a specific period of years and antagonism and/or not support in others to Portugal by them, as the peace of France with Spain (exemple) the period of bad and no relations with Cromweel`s Britain, or even the Netherlands as a supporting country during a period and as a enemy overseas. Set the respective years to the flag, and even a synthetic note (if necessary the note), so that the reader perceives the article as well (and for a Infobox consistent with the History and the article).

In Westphalia, the first great support and/or most consistent diplomatic support for Portugal was the Protestant Sweden by the way.

Another point: What is the date for Britain? 1661 - Restoring official alliance - or 1662, when the first effective and official British human and material support arrived in Portugal? --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I added France to the combatants because it took an active part in the war. In 1641 Louis XIII and Joao IV signed a treaty of alliance under whose terms France sent to Portugal cavalry, officers, weapons and ammunitions. Both countries, moreover, cooperated by sea in their war against Spain. The Portuguese rebellion, much like the Catalan rebellion, was a sub-war of the dispute between France and Spain, but unlike Catalonia, Portugal shared no frontier with France, and thus its intervention was limited. Weymar Horren (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Another point that I was going to mention was the placement of a Royal standard of the time. Weymar, you corrected very well. For that matter, several articles in wikipedia have the dates of participation in conflicts or wars, or support as in the case of this particular war, others, in a less rigorous way, haven´t; others, sometimes, with the country in both opposite sides of the conflict, as governments change or/and shifting alliances, and even other type cases as well - various types of wars. In the case of this war, the mention to periods are justified and necessary, because these are a fact and obey to changes in alliances, or treaties of peace and political or diplomatic changes, and sometimes to both sides (treaties etc..).--LuzoGraal (talk) 18:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

de-Spanishizing
There needs to stop this incessant rewriting of history to make it seem like Portugal was contempt and in an completely equal relationship with the Spanish. There seems to be this de-Spanishizing of Philip II of Spain to and Philip IV of Spain and force effort to equalize Spain and Portugal (essentuating their Portugueseness and removing any reference that they were Spanish kings and lived mainly in Spain with the interest of Spain as their first priority) in a way historians and contemporary would not have seen it as. We might as well said the war was between the Kingdom of Portugal and the Kingdom of Portugal and the other side was led by the Duke of Braganza not John IV. It is like rewriting Irish history to make every rebellion or conflict between the Irish people something between the Irish people and Kingdom of Ireland or Lordship of Ireland while ignoring or desensitizing any English involvement in the manner, so the history of Ireland would be made up of conflicts between the Irish King (who lives in England and used English troops).--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

relations between France and Spain
Not sure why, but Cardinal Richelieu was referred to as 'she', rather than 'he'. I've since corrected it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.159.213.206 (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't add up
The result of this war wasn't Portuguese independence. They were always independent. Just like James VI of Scotland who was James I of England, the Kings who ruled both Spain and Portugal maintained separate Roman numerals in the two kingdoms. When England and Scotland merged to become one country, the combination was known as "Great Britain", proving that before they merged the fact that the same person was Monarch of both didn't mean they were the same country. There never was a Kingdom of Iberia because Portugal and Spain never merged. They simply had the same Monarch. Two countries with the same Monarch are NOT the same country, and so neither of them can fight a war to become "independent" of the other country, of which it was never ever a part. After reading this article I'm not even sure it is proper to speak of a King Of Spain at this point, if the Roman numeral in Castille-and-Leon was different from the Roman numeral in Aragon. To what extent were national institutions merged? That has some bearing. The father and grandfather of the current Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland were both at times King of Ireland. If you had walked around in Irish Free State before Ireland became a Republic, shouting that Ireland and the U.K. were the same country because they had the same King, you might well have been killed.74.64.104.99 (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * The box doesn't say that Portugal became independent because of this war, for all the reasons you mentioned above. In addition, you must remember that the role of King of Spain or Portugal in this period was much different to that of the ceremonial monarch George VI in the 20th century. The citing is weak, but the general thrust of this article seems to be that Phillip had the power to rule Portugal as he saw fit, limiting or attempting to limit the native nobility's influence.

Dutch Republic a belligerent?
The Dutch Republic signed a truce with Portugal to fight together against the Spanish and send out a fleet to help the Portuguese which resulted in the Battle of Cape St. Vincent (1641). So shouldn't they be included in the infobox? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 19:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)