Talk:War of the Spanish Succession/Archive 2

THE KINGDOM OF SPAIN DIDN'T EXIST YET
I already see it before in a lot of articles of the English wikipedia. But is a big mistake because this kingdom was founded after this war. It should be in the French side Castilia and in the Austria side the Crown of Aragon. All the articles that show the United Kingdom or the Kingdom of Spain before this war are wrong. Here it looks like all Spain is in the France side and it wasn't like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolg (talk • contribs) 01:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobody is saying that. It is recognized that Spain was a confederation of kingdoms in Hispania under one king. The article mentions the division in Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.99.213 (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Big mistake
The Kingdom of Spain didn`t exist yet. In the French side was Castilla and in the Austria side the Crown of Aragon (Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia and Mallorca). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolg (talk • contribs) 08:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC) Indeed "the current" Aragon was in the French side. Only Catalonia, Mallorca and part of Valencia were on the German side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.202.2.127 (talk) 19:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Catalonia, Mallorca and part of Valencia were on the German side. Bavaria supported the Bourbon claim to the throne of Spain, s. Botho which "German side" are you talking about? There was Habsburg side and a Bourbon side fighting for the Spanish throne. And if "Spain" did not exist then why would half of Europe fight a war for the throne of something that did not exist? If you want an answer to these mysteries read some of the older posts here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.99.213 (talk) 06:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

One problem
Can you explaine me what's mean secomd and third note. --Vojvodaen 21:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrong
It's wrong to say that in one faction was Spain and in the other th Crown of Aragon. The crown of Aragon is correct, but not Spain, but crown of Castille. I change itWho plays violin 10:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC) 10:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's wrong both ways Philip V and Charles "III" claimed being the true sovereigns of the Spanish Kingdoms. It was not a war between Aragon & Castille but between the Bourbon King and the Hapsburg King. --213.37.240.130 18:18, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with anon: the Crown of Aragon didn't exist politically as such anymore since it merged with the Kingdom of Castile two centuries before. The component realms did exist legally and, indeed, most people in those (with some noticeable exceptions) joined Charles cause, but Charles didn't fight as the king of the Crown of Aragon as opposed to the kingdom of Castile or vice versa, for example, another historic kingdom, Navarre, mostly sided with Phillip. In Spain it was more like a civil war with supporters of either pretender elsewhere, and the pretenders were so to the Kingdom of Spain, not to particular smaller components of it as opposed to others, let alone to the Crown of Aragon, which had actually ceased to exist 200 years before. Mountolive | Talk 00:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong, the kingdoms did exist then. In modern terms, we could say that there was a federation of the Kingdom of Castille and the Kingdom of Aragon, each one with its own laws and ruling goverments, but sharing kings. In fact, Phillipe was not "Phillipe V of Spain" but "Phillipe V of Castille, IV of Aragon, etc.". It is true, though, that it was not a war of Aragon against Castille, but of the supporters of two aspiring kings.213.31.180.126 (talk) 14:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Some problems
Well, the article doesn't have inline references. I could fix that I suppose, but there are a couple of points strike me as rather odd: Curious as to what others think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "The latter [northern] theatre proved the more important". Did it? The war over the succession was surely won and lost in Spain.
 * "France and Spain, both under Bourbon monarchs, remained allies during the following years". So what about the War of the Quadruple Alliance?


 * The second point doesn't jibe with what I know of 18th century politics (which isn't much). The first is more my field.  The key point to understand is that, despite being called the "War of the Spanish Succession", it should really have been called the "War of putting the kibosh on Louis XIVs ambitions of European Hegemony".  Keeping either the Austrians or the French from becoming too powerful, while important, was a side issue.  The easiest way into France was (and still is) from the Northeast, despite the fortress belt, and that's where the main armies of the protagonists concentrated (1704 aside).  Defeat in Spain for either side would not have ended the war.  Defeat on the Northern front (for the French) or on the Danube (for the Austrians) would have.  MartinMcCann (talk) 16:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible merge from Queen Anne's War
There has been discussion on Talk:Queen Anne's War regarding the merging of that article into this. I see that this article is Featured (though perhaps not up to current standards?) so I wanted to get a bit more discussion before boldly merging. First, is it a merger a good idea? The Queen Anne's War article is a bit scant and doesn't have references to stand on its own. However I'm only marginally familiar with this topic so I can't be a perfect judge. It seems to me that they are different names for the same thing, and that Queen Anne's War was used to describe the conflict in the North American theatre. I see that this article doesn't much mention the goings-on in North America, and I believe it would be a net plus to include it under a "Queen Anne's War" heading. Thoughts? Comments? Concerns? -FrankTobia (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't support this solution. This is two different wars in historiography.--Vojvodaen (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, considering Queen Ann's war as separate is a Revisionist viewpoint. Queen Ann's War is part of the larger World War of the Spanish Succession. If you disagree then you disagree with my College professors who say Queen Ann's War is part of the larger war. I say merge the articles and reduce the Queen Ann's article to secondary article.Magnum Serpentine (talk) 17:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Should the QAW article be merged? No. Should this article mention the theatre? Yes. BTW Why is Rákóczi in the infobox? The Hungarian rebels weren't allies with France, no more than the Ottomans were during the NYW. 17:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, merge is not appropriate. But, this article has no content on Queen Anne's War. I think coverage similar to what the War of the Austrian Succession article gave King George's War in the "War outside Europe" section might be appropriate. On the other hand, the coverage War of the Grand Alliance gave King William's War is too much. BradMajors (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I support this solution. It would be like combining the Eastern and Western theatres of World War 2 into one article, since they are the same war. The Queen Anne's War article is dreadfully short anyway. It doesn't even mention pirates... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.178.249 (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Minor allies
footnotes 2 and 3, supposedly detailing minor allies in the war, seem to direct to other footnotes. Perhaps that should be fixed. -- Nudve (talk) 09:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Catalan POV
This nonsense in the info box is starting up again. Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Mallorca are now listed as combatants. See the talk archives for the last go-round. Rather than getting in a revert war, I figured to bring it up here. Coemgenus 16:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree. As I said back in the day, maybe a section in the article should be created as a playground for these people's concerns? Mountolive   all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 16:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't Agree. First of all: Titles of the "suposed" king of Spain: Nos Don Felipe, por la gracia de Dios, Rey de Castilla, de Leon, de Aragon, de las dos Sicilias, de Jerusalen, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de Sevilla, de Cerdeña, de Córdoba, de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaen, de los Algirbes, de Algecíra, de Gibraltar, de las Islas de Canaria, de las Indias Orientales y Occidentales, Islas y Tierra-Firme del Mar Océano; Archiduque de Austria; Duque de Borgoña, de Brabante, y de Milan; Conde de Habspurg, de Flandes, del Tirol, y de Barcelona; Señor de Vizcaya y de Molina, &c. Source: [] Now, the titles of the other "suposed king" of Spain: Nos Carolus Sextus Divina favente Clementia electus Romanorum Imperator semper Augustus, Rex Germaniae, Castellae, Arragonum, Legionis, utriusque Siciliae, Hierusalem, Hungariae, Bohemiae, Dalmatiae, Croatiae, Sclavoniae, Navarrae, Granatae, Toleti, Valentiae, Galleciae, Majoricarum, Seviliae, Sardiniae, Cordubae, Corsicae, Murciae, Giennis, Algarbiae, Algezirae, Gibraltaris, Insularum Canariae, & Indiarium ac terrae firmae Maris Oceani, etc;Archidux Austriae; Dux Burgundiae, Brabantia, Mediolani, Stiriae, Carinthiae, Carniolae, Limburgiae, Lucemburgiae, Geldriae, Wirtembergae, superioris et inferioris Silesiae, Calabriae, Athenarum, et Neopatriae;Princeps Sueviae, Cataloniae & Asturiae;Marchio Sacri Romani Imperii, Burgoviae, Moraviae, Superioris et inferioris Lusatiae;Comes Habspurgi, Flandriae, Tyrolis, Ferretis, Kyburgi, Goritiae & Arthesiae,Landgravius Alsatiae;Marchio Oristhani, et Comes Goziani, Namurci, Rossilionis, Cerretaniae; Dominus Marchiae Sclavicae, Portus Naonis, Biscaiae, Molinae, Salinarum, Tripolis, & Mechlinae, Source: []
 * As you may see, nor Philip neither Charles, used this imaginarious title of "king of Spain". So we can try to make history-fiction, and calling the Quenn Anne, the Queen of the United Kingdom in 1707, but this is obviously an attack against any sense of intelligence. In 1707 didnt't existed the United Kingdom, as didn't existed the Kingdom of Spain. User:Georg-hessen 18:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Before you defaced it, there was a footnote explaining the change from England and Scotland to the United Kingdom. Now it's half of a non-functioning footnote.  Thanks.
 * As to your other concerns, Spain had been united under one man since 1516. Yes, he had a lot of titles.  So did the Tsars of Russia; we don't list all of them separately each time Russia fought a war.  Coemgenus 17:56, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The ref problem has been fixed. Your thanks are welcome.
 * To the other concern, this one person ruled, for instance, Philip II, ruled in England because he married with Mary Tudor. Do you mean that England and this "suposed kindom of Spain" where then a unique Kingdom. Is this what you mean??? A non-sense reasoning. A unique ruler don't impply a unique kingdom. You may go on with History-fiction, and talking about the Englaspain kingdom under Philip II. Please, we must be seriuos. User:Georg-hessen 19:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's be serious, indeed. Find a reliable source that says the Kingdoms of Valencia and Mallorca fought in this war, and we'll keep the changes you made.  Absent that, the rules on reliable sources force us to refer to the combatant nations by the titles that every historian of that war does.  I'd revert it again, but that would place me, like you, in violation of WP:3RR.  Coemgenus 18:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ok, thanks for your patiente. Revert it again and let me, as you say, find a reliable source that shows how the Kingdom of Aragon, the Kingdom of Valencia, the kingdom of Mallorca and the Princiality of Catalonia fought in this war. A pair of days, now i'm busy. Thanks again. User:Georg-hessen 19:36, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could be wrong, but, to my understanding, since the throne was vacant and the king could not convoke and gather the respective Corts (a sort of Estates-General) there is no, say, "institutional" statement from any of those kingdoms supporting any given pretender. What indeed you may find are local statements supporting one or the other. For example, in the Kingdom of Valencia, Alicante (among others) supported Philip, whereas support for Charles was actually the rule over the rest of this kingdom. But, lacking any institutional statement that we could cling to, they were basically hollow structures or one more of the Spanish monarch titles, and, as such, it is nonsense to list them in the table. You would have to go "micro" to see which areas within each kingdom supported whom, something which is too troublesome to fit in the article, for not to mention in the table. This said, it is obvious that support for Charles was most staunch in the territories pertaining -nominally- to those kingdoms, which became his last strongholds. But to infer from there that the kingdoms themselves, as such, fought, is wrong.


 * Because those kingdoms were as vacant as the Spanish Monarchy they were a part of was. Mountolive   all over Battersea, some hope and some dispair 19:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * With no doubt you are wrong. The point you are using may be used to reject the suportters of James Stuart, the so called jacobites Jacobitism. In the case of Catalonia and the others, there are, indeed, institutional statement from any of those kingdoms supporting to Charles III. So you are absolutly wrong or you are lying. User:Georg-hessen 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, let's not start throwing around accusations. Remember to assume good faith.  Coemgenus 16:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Let me pitch in. The discussion here is not about giving a Catalan POV: it's about removing some interested confusions that are usually planted in the history of that age.


 * First of all, for full disclosure, I am a Catalan, and I agree fully User:Georg-hessen's statements. I don't think there is bad faith, though: Spanish historians tend to summarize out anything that hints at Spain being different kingdoms after the 15th century. They usually don't go as far as denying it, but they tiptoe around the issue. The fact is that the Crowns of Castille and Aragon merged into a dynastic union, but, from the king downwards, no merger was performed. Each kingdom kept its own laws, institutions, and borders. They collected taxes and had their own army, and sometimes they had the gall (and the power) to deny this army's help to the king. The king was required to perform an oath in front of each of the "Cortes" (in Spanish speaking territories) or "Corts" (in Catalan speaking territories) in order to be recognized as king. Since the Crown of Aragon had a "confederal" (heavily quoted, but take it as an analogy) structure, this meant five different oaths: Crown of Castile, Kingdom of Aragon, Catalonia, Kingdom of Valencia, and Kingdom of Majorca. Notice that the entries for each of these kingdoms (except the Majorcan) list the date of extinction during the War of Spanish Succession. As for Majorca, the English Wikipedia article is incomplete, but the kingdom did exist.


 * If you need non-Wikipedia sources, you may take a look at this source, which states that "For the purposes of administration one can say that all these territories were completely separate entities. There was e.g. a real border between Castile and Aragon, and in an administrative sense inhabitants of one entity were foreigners in the other." So, bear in mind, that, at that time, the term "Spain" is a geographic synonim for "Iberian Peninsula".


 * There is also the Britannica, which, in an entry that's not too sympathetic with Catalans, states, talking about the outcome of the war: "Paradoxically, a disastrous war had for the first time created a unitary Spanish state: except for the Basque provinces and Navarre, Spain was under direct royal administration."


 * Notice also that the Kingdom of Navarre, which remained loyal to Philip V, kept its separate status (with borders south at the Ebro river) until 1833. The other kingdoms lost this status as a punishment for siding with Charles during this war, by the Nueva Planta decrees.


 * I think this proves that all those kingdoms did exist. As for their support to one or the other pretender, I'll go on in a minute.

--Jout (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

To decide whose side everybody was on, we should look at what the authorities of each kingdom did. The current configuration of the info box suggests that France and Spain fought together against the Austrian, English and Dutch. This is ridiculous.

No doubt there were individuals (and even whole cities) who supported a different pretender from the rest of each kingdom, but this issue should be decided on what the Corts/Cortes and each kingdom's institutions did.

In 1701 and 1702, Philip took the oath in Barcelona (Catalonia) and Zaragoza (Aragon). He promised to respect their constitutions, agreed to several requests, and received some cash. He also took the oath in Castile. By the way, he got married in Figueres (Catalonia) in 1701.

However, soon problems started. Several Catalan authorities were imprisoned, unrest grew, and the Catalan ruling class suspected that the king had no intention to respect their constitutions, so they secretly made a pact with an English plenipotentiary and revolted against Philip in May 1705. By the end of August, Charles's fleet starts the siege of Barcelona, with the help of Catalan militias. Barcelona surrenders in a month, and Charles enters the city. He gathers the Corts (1705-1706) and becomes king Charles III. In december 1705, his troops take Valencia, and he is proclaimed king there. See also this link. Aragon sides with Charles when Philip crosses Aragon in order to try to recover Barcelona. The Spanish Wikipedia article states that Aragon and Mallorca joined Charles's cause in 1706.

So, the territories of the Crown of Aragon switched sides, and fought for Charles until the bitter end.

The siege of Barcelona (while Charles remains in the city) by Philip's army fails in may 1706. In july 1706, Charles takes Madrid, and he is proclaimed King of Castile, but soon has to flee to Valencia, where he spends fall 1706 and winter 1707, and organizes its institutions. After the battle of Almansa, and the losses of Aragon and Valencia, Barcelona becomes his capital, and he marries there in 1708 with Elisabeth Christine of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel.

He lived there until 1711, when his brother died, and he become Holy Roman Emperor. However, his wife stayed until early 1713 as a token of his claim to the throne. She left shortly before the signature of the Treaty of Utrecht Even after the treaties of Utrecht and Rastatt, Catalans kept fighting. That alone should make them count with the Austrian side. Barcelona fell in September 1714, and Majorca didn't surrender until 1715.

Another proof of this is the Nueva Planta Decrees themselves, which identify which kingdoms fought Philip and subjects them to Castilian law.

This document by the British House of Lords, from the article's links, is quite interesting to see the English point of view: the session is an impeachment against the Earl of Oxford for his failure in protecting the Catalans during the Utrecht negotiations, thus betraying the pact that had been established between the British and the Catalans: "in him lay, as a faithful Minister, to have prevented the Conclusion of the Treaty of Peace with Spain, till just and honourable Conditions were secured for the Catalans; but did, falsely, maliciously, and treacherously, advise Her Majesty to conclude a Peace with the King of Spain, without any Security for the ancient and just Rights, Liberties, and Privileges, of that brave, but unhappy, Nation;(...)and the Honour of the British Nation, always renowned for the Love of Liberty, and for giving Protection to the Assertors of it, was most basely prostituted; and a free and generous People, the faithful and useful Allies of this Kingdom, were betrayed, in the most unparalleled Manner, into irrevocable Slavery;"

So courts were gathered, oaths were taken, and Charles III acted as a king in his territories while he could hold on to them. Philip then punished these territories by revoking their laws and institutions and subjecting them to Castile. Some territories kept fighting against Philip even after all the European powers had given up on them. I think that they should at least be counted as combatants. --Jout (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Heir under Philip IV's will
The "Background" section currently reads "In 1668 [...] the then-childless Leopold had agreed to the partition of the Spanish territories between the Bourbons and the Hapsburgs, even though Philip IV's will entitled him to the entire inheritance". It is later stated that "Joseph Ferdinand [of Bavaria], moreover, would have been the lawful heir to the Spanish throne under Philip IV's will". Leopold had married Philip IV's daughter Margareta Theresa in 1666, and their first child was born in 1667 (though he died in 1668). By 1692 their sole descendant was Joseph Ferdinand of Bavaria. This seems to mean that Philip IV left his dominions (a) to his son Charles (later II), (b) to the descendants of Margareta Theresa, his daughter by his second wife, (c) to his son-in-law Leopold, husband of Margareta Theresa. Is that correct? Some clarity is definitely needed; is there a source for the actual wording of the will? And when exactly in 1668 did Leopold agree to the partition of the territories, which would sign away his children's inheritance - before or after the death of his son? Opera hat (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Opening blurb is confusing
The side box indicates that France (Bourbons) won the war, but the opening blurb says that "France's hegemony over continental Europe was ended", as well as saying that the union of the two thrones never occurred. Now I suppose that France could have won the war but we these two side effects, but then, shouldn't the blurb indicate what the Bourbons won from the war? -- LightSpectra (talk) 02:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Strenght of Belligerents
Where on earth did that figure of 13,000 infantry and 5,000 on the Spanish side come from. On the Battle of Saragossa page the strength of the Spanish army is put at 20,000, more than the 17,000 total said to be the complete strength. Since, (according to the page on Historical powers) Spain remained a great power until the 19th centuary, (giving 1809, 1811 and 1898 as specific dates) I find my myself migrating towards the stance taken by the souce on the Battle of Saragossa page.--86.131.213.123 (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2009 (UTC) RS 28/07/09

Note that the 17,000 was in 1702, and that by 1713 there were "over 100,000". Saragossa being fought in 1710, it is possible that the Spanish could have raised 20,000 men. King Philip V of Spain (talk) 12:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Influence on colonies in South America
Hi! For the article Jesuit Missions of Chiquitos which is currently under peer review I am looking for some information about the War of the Spanish Succession. Two sources say that the war caused a shortage of missionaries in the missions. In the review the question was raised, in which way the shortage of missionaries resulted from a war in Europe.

Quote: ""The War of the Spanish Succession from 1701 to 1714 resulted in a shortage of missionaries and instability in the reductions": were the missionaries recalled to Spain? Or did communication between Spain and her colonies suffer as a result of the war? Or was there a lack of funding? It's unclear how a war in Spain would affect religious activities in Bolivia."

Apparently many of the missionaries were Germans, Austrians and Swiss and therefore part of the Habsburg empire. Was this the only reason for the shortage of missionaries or are there also others? I would be glad if somebody could direct me to sources discussing this issue. bamse (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Beligerants
I think it would be more accurate to include England, followed by Great Britain in the list of beligerants, as Great Britain didn't exist until 1707. This would also make the list consistent with that in the article on Queen Anne's War.82.108.205.2 (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing material
The combination of this article and Queen Anne's War is missing a fair amount of material. There was a whole bunch of activity in the West Indies (including the near-capture of a Spanish treasure fleet by Charles Wager, and activity by d'Iberville), and something like Woodes Rogers' round-the-world trip probably merits mention. See David Marley's Wars of the Americas: a chronology of armed conflict in the New World.  Magic ♪piano 02:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Result Shouldn't it be classed as a victory for Britain the Dutch, Hamburgs ect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.224.47 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * why is the catalan name Joan Baptista Basset translated into spanish? It makes no sense at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.210.133.246 (talk) 22:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Silly bias
The Catalonia nationalists have finally, after much effort and perseverance, taken control of this article. It's quite an achievement to obliterate the Duke of Marlborough from the info box and promote colonel Basset to prominence – the only colonel in wikepedian history to appear in the info box of a major war. And the civilian Casonova? Who else do we think of when we think of the War of the Spanish Succession? Interesting to learn that William III led the British war effort! Amazing achievement considering he died before the declaration of war! Rebel Redcoat (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Spain's position as belligerent
I don't really like the current set-up of the infobox. At the time the war began, Philip was king of Spain. He was recognized in all the kingdoms in 1700, and had control over the entire kingdom. To the extent that Charles established himself in parts of Spain during the war, this was in large part due to the presence of foreign armies in Spain. I'd add that putting the two Spanish claimants first in the belligerents field promotes the idea that this war was primarily a Spanish Civil War, which it was not. It was primarily a European war. On the one side, the most important belligerents were Britain and Austria, on the other side France. These should be listed first. Charles and his supporters should be listed no higher than fourth on the allied side, after the three main allies. Spain (of which Philip was undisputed king, internally, when the war began) should be listed beneath France on the French side. john k (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stumbling on this article after a long absence, I acted boldly and essentially implemented these recommendations to the letter. I'm glad to have found this retroactive justification/reasoning (though consulting it beforehand would have considerably simplified my edit summaries down to a manageable "as per john k"). For what it's worth, I've long advocated that some permutation of the principle "Combatants listed by order of numerical strength" be enshrined as WP:MILHIST best practice. Albrecht (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Maximilian of Bavaria as a Spanish commander
Maximilian of Bavaria was governor of the Spanish Netherlands and elector of Bavaria. After the Battle of Blenheim, Maximilian fled Bavaria, which was conquered by the Austrians, and went to the Netherlands. There, obviously, he was no longer a Bavarian commander, but a Spanish one, since he ruled the Netherlands in Spain's name. After the Battle of Ramillies, the Spanish Netherlands were conquered and Maximilian fled to France. He was a Spanish commander not because he was Spanish (which he wasn't), but because he ruled a Spanish territory from which he fought the war (he commanded Spanish troops at Ramillies). King Philip V of Spain (talk) 03:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on major conflict infobox
A discussion on a major conflict infobox is taking place at Template talk:WW2InfoBox. All input welcome. Thank you. walk victor falktalk 07:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Error in the "Result" box

 * "Philip is recognised as King of Spain, but renounces any claim to the throne of France."

This is wrong, because Philip renounced already before he claimed the Spanish throne: "After a long Royal Council meeting in France at which the Dauphin spoke up in favour of his son's rights, it was agreed that Philip would ascend the throne, but would forever renounce his claim to the throne of France for himself and his descendants." (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_V_of_Spain)

The French nobility was not that stupid as the modern recension wants to see it. In fact the renaissance kings including Louis XIV created a lot of wealth and prosperity in France. Just travel to France once, they have as many castles as all countries in the world together. --178.197.236.179 (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite
I have rewritten this article. My rewrite is not set in stone (obviously, this is Wikipedia); changes can be made if necessary over the coming weeks. If it is deemed too long cuts in the campaign sections can be made at a later stage. For now it needs checking for grammar/typos and accuracy. Rebel Redcoat (talk) 12:07, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally a good job as far as I have seen, well done. However, I had to correct wrong data I spotted by chance, such as claiming that within Philip V's peninsular territories there existed just Aragon and Castile as kingdoms, wrong for a start, but I fixed it, added Navarre. I happened to see that now Spain was unified and centralized, totally omitting 1. Navarre (still autonomous), 2. The rest of Basque territories under the Kingdom of Castile but acting almost autonomously under their own laws and institutions. No worries, I corrected that as well. To end with, you delete all the paragraph on relevant info for the history of Spain.


 * Listen, not interested in elaborating on the topic at all, the less work for me the better. I do not intend to dwell on this article believe me. The events in the Basque districts were a follow-up to the War of Spanish Succession, and immediate consequent to it, just citing correct relevant information should be enough. By the way, I respect your focus on international diplomacy and military developments, but citing a key parameter recurrently appearing in (and a driving force behind) Spanish historic events, does not seem to be a "parochialism." Iñaki LL (talk) 20:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing some rewrites/expansions on the Nine Years War and based on that there are a few areas for (minor) expansion, plus I agree some editing to shorten or tighten it up would be worthwhile (that's true for most articles :)). I won't change any content without discussion, so I'll make a start and feedback is welcome.

Robinvp11 (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Casualties and Losses
There is something terribly wrong with the number of casualties listed. I'm not too well acquaintanced with the literature on this, but to me it seems like an obvious fabrication, and it isn't sourced. It's also an arbitrary number rather than an estimate, which seems extremely unlikely. It's currently listed as "17,237,346 dead or missing" and "13,464,742 dead or missing", which in total surpasses the Thirty Years War, the Napoleonic Wars and even World War I on some estimates.--Faitu (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Looking at the edit history, it seems like this is the work of a vandal. --94.231.255.30 (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To add to the infobox: the number of casualties/deaths. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Europe Map
The map of Europe in the first section has some errors, such as misplacing the Bug river. CasualStructure (talk) 15:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Suggested Edits
I know a lot of work has gone into this but I think the article as a whole runs the danger of being overly detailed; we need to remember Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia and make it easy to use. I was given this advice by two other editors and it's been really helped; condensing is much harder work than it appears. I've had to do this with my own articles ie continually removing stuff that I find interesting but doesn't help the user.

For example; I'm not quarrelling with the content but I'm an historian who knows something about this and I got lost in the stuff on the various heirs. Which is a shame because in reality, its very simple; neither Austria or France could allow the other to acquire the undivided Spanish monarchy - the waivers etc are largely noise, particularly since sides ignored them anyway.

I'd like to give this a go; the bones of this article are great but as the original editor pointed out in 2014, its not set in stone. My objective is to make it easier and more accessible for non-editors ie the public to use but to do so in a respectful way.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I am no historian, so I cannot judge on the content. However, I want to doubt that cutting down on details is to the advantage of an online(!) encyclopedia, I would prefer to improve on structuring.
 * It may be obvious to a reasonably versed historian that increasing independence of the larger German states would continue the long-term trend of weakening the Holy Roman Empire, but, well, knowing about that trend is –now deleted– expertise.
 * As a second point, I do not know if the recognition of a Prussian king was covered in some treaty, and has been less noticed, but if so I would consider this, in the light of Prussia's importance, as a significant clause, too, and nothing to be stripped for being overly detailed.
 * Just my 2 cents on your last edit, I am not sufficiently erudite to interfere too much. Purgy (talk) 13:05, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Suggested Edits
Thanks all for the proposed edits on the War of the Spanish Succession;

- Whether the WoSS was the last conflict in which the Republic was a major power or that of the War of the Austrian Succession

This point has been interpreted differently by historians; the literature I've seen is clear the cumulative costs of fighting off France, the loss of trade and internal political dissent meant the Dutch were no longer a primary power. MS Anderson states the Netherlands were too weak to support the WOASS and 'operated purely as an auxiliary of Maria Theresa.'

As a reconciliation, I've changed 'end ' to 'decline.'

I have a general query on whether it is appropriate to include a Dutch language reference (I know, the irony :)). If you have a translation that would be great.

- Re the description of Charles II and Hapsburg incest

It's a really interesting reference - thanks for that - which I've left in but I hesitate to alter the description; I've also read the literature and I don't think it can be argued as fact.

Happy to discuss, thanks both for helping improve this article.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Rewrite/Update of Article
As I've mentioned before, the article contains loads of interesting detail but is too long for an Encyclopedia. In addition, some of the references used need to be updated.

- Condense where possible;

- Cover each war theatre as a whole ie from start to finish rather than in segments and make it easier to follow;

- Move detail into the battles (so the battles also need updating but they can contain a lot of the content currently included here);

- Update the references eg Trevelyan needs to be read with extreme care.

Feedback gratefully received.

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RAMIlLIES is a disambiguatin page
The article Ramillies does not exist in Wikipedia and is a disambiguation page. Every week a new redistribution of the text is made and a link to it appears, each time I have to relink it either to Battle of Ramillies or to Ramillies, Belgium. Next time you add this link ( Ramillies ) be sure it links to one of those. --MaoGo (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Grand Alliance versus Allies
Interesting question (for me :)) arising from an editorial suggestion that we use Grand Alliance rather than Allies. I took a look at this because it is really confusing; per Christian Wiktor's Mulitlateral Treaty Calendar, the Grand Alliance is technically restricted to the Emperor, Britain and the Netherlands, all others being associates ie Prussia signed a separate treaty with Britain and the Netherlands.

From the Oxford Public International Law blog; ''The Treaty was ratified by the Emperor on 19 September, by Great Britain on 21 September, and by the Netherlands on 5 October 1701, and the Separate Article by the Emperor on 22 March and by Great Britain on 19(30) April 1702. The accessions of the Franconian, Suabian and Upper Rhine Circles (22 March 1702) and of the Circle of Lower Rhine-Westphalia (29 September (7 October) 1702), Prussia acceded on 30 December 1701, Brunswick-Luneburg-Wolfenbuttel on 29 May, Brunswick on 24 June, Brunswick-Luneburg-Hanover on 4 July, Brunswick-Luneburg-Celle on 4 July, Mecklenburg-Schwerin on 7 September, the Circle of the Upper Rhine on 7 October 1702, and Hesse-Cassel on 15 January 1703. Savoy acceded by the Treaty with Great Britain of 4 August 1704.''

Its complicated :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 13:03, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Re Spain loyal to the Hapsburgs discussion
This came out of a discussion with another editor which I think is worth sharing about what to call those Spainards who were pro-Archduke Charles. in 1701, Spain was still legally divided into the Crowns of Aragon and Castille but they were united under one monarch since 1591. This distinction was later eliminated by Philip but you didn't get a choice; Philip was the legal heir of Charles II, who was acknowledged as King of both Crowns.

In addition, the Crown of Aragon or Corona de Aragón was not the same as the Kingdom of Aragon. The Crown was composed of the separate kingdoms of Aragon, Catalonia, Majorca, Sardinia, Valencia, Naples and Sicily; the Italian states all supported Philip, as did significant parts of Aragon outside Zaragossa and Valencia. This means we cannot say Crown of Aragon = Hapsburgs.

It also ignores the very different political cultures of Aragon (the fueros, autonomy) and Castille (centralised) - not agreeing with each other was the whole point. Its debatable whether we can even say 'Catalonia supported the Hapsburgs' when decisions were taken by a small unelected urban minority in Barcelona.

For me, 'Spain, in revolt against the Bourbons' or 'Anti-Bourbon forces' is a better reflection of the realities than 'Spain loyal to the Hapsburgs' but not a battle worth fighting :).

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Portugal and Spain
I see that this entry was vastly reduced in previous editions, although I think some of the information there was of importance in the context of these two nations. The battles that occurred in the Iberian Peninsula were of great importance to the outcome of the war. I would like to know if it would be possible to reexpand it or at least reintroduce some of the information that was taken out. Thanks. -Ppteles (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent Edits
Wikipedia is a collaborative environment so no problem with edits but they need to be explained. Since it is also designed for use by others, shorter is better - adding extra verbiage doesn't help that. The Lead is supposed to summarise key themes, clearly and concisely, while detail is provided elsewhere.

I try to avoid 'Not Invented Here' but I've put a lot of time into this article and many associated ones eg the Partition Treaties, the 1696 Turin Treaty, Ryswick, Charles II, his mother, his two wives, many of the battles fought in Italy etc etc. They all tie into each other and are consistent so they can be used as standalone articles. I think its reasonable to ask for changes to be explained and discussed.

Robinvp11 (talk) 11:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Footnotes and Bibliography sections
Either the footnotes that make up the Footnotes section should be complete, and the Bibliography section should be omitted, or the footnotes should be short (see WP:CITESHORT and Help:Shortened footnotes) and full information should be in the Bibliography section. This article's approach is therefore incorrect, since it takes neither of these approaches. As a result, there is massive duplication/unnecessary information in these two sections.

Also, WP:GTL strongly discourages using "Bibliography" as a section title; the preferred title is "Sources"; similarly, "Footnotes" is non-standard. (The norm is to name the two sections "Notes" and "References".)

Finally, I note that the footnotes related to Lynn use the shortened footnote approach, while the other footnotes do not, which certainly will confuse the reader. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 19:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this has now been corrected. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Britain's aims
I'm confused as to why it's listed that their major endeavor was securing a Protestant heir, when none of the eligible heirs were Protestant. Doxedevenexia (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * The 1701 Act of Succession excluded Catholics from the throne, and thus the exiled Stuarts. Louis recognised their removal under the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, then went back on that in 1700. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sentence missing its main predicate verb.
The article says, in part:

"In the October 1698 Treaty of the Hague, or First Partition Treaty, France, Britain and the Dutch Republic made the five-year-old heir to the bulk of the Spanish monarchy and divided Madrid's European territories between France and Austria."

I found this, a sentence in the third paragraph of the Partition Treaties section which I believe is lacking its main, predicate verb.

Most of the sentence mostly makes sense, except where I add bracketsː

"'In the October 1698 Treaty of the Hague, or First Partition Treaty, France, Britain and the Dutch Republic made the five-year-old heir to the bulk of the Spanish monarchy [do something?] and divided Madrid's European territories between France and Austria.'"

It happens that the english language can support almost infinite sub=clauses. You can drop in any kind of clause between any two other clauses, but you can also lose track of your original or intended thought. What did the Powers make the five year old sovereign (or heir apparent?) do? Abdicate, concede, ascend, capitulate, divest, accept, or something along those lines? If I pretty confidently knew what was intended or meant I would just supply it. I may still. Any thoughts? MM <{: )}> BaalShemRa (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure what the issue is but I've simplified the wording. Robinvp11 (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Belligerents
Explanation;


 * Holy Roman Empire; because it was declared an Imperial war, any participants who were also members eg Austria, Hesse-Kassel, Palatinate etc technically took part as members of the HRE. However, they were only obliged to supply troops for defending their circle against invasion, so the vast majority remained neutral, or hired out troops for use elsewhere eg the German troops who fought in Italy and Spain.


 * The exceptions were Prussia, which Leopold reluctantly accepted as a kingdom and member of the Grand Alliance, Bavaria and Hungary, which were technically in revolt against the Emperor, so appear separately.


 * The situation was complicated by the fact some rulers held territories that were part of the Empire; Victor Amadeus of Savoy was ruler of the Savoyard state, which included the County of Nice and Principality of Piedmont as well as the Duchy of Savoy, which was technically part of the HRE. Hence Savoy, as in the Savoyard state, is distinct from the Duchy.


 * The guiding principle for belligerents are those states which were part of the Peace of Utrecht, Baden and Rastatt.


 * Hope that makes sense, let me know if not. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It does not, various principalities of the empire fought as each saw fit. Your edits have removed the major belligerents of Cologne and Liege from the infobox. They were collectively a major belligerent in the first year of the war, taking major offensive action.XavierGreen (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Re above and the recent edits. (a) I did not remove Liege or Cologne; (b) a belligerent is a belligerent, there is no distinction between 'minor' or 'major'; (c) you and Jules need to figure this out, rather than fighting edit wars on a succession of pages. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I would put the different kingdoms of the crown of "Spain", under the different parts.

Castile, Milan, Spanish Netherlands, Naples and Sicily with Philips. Crown of Aragon with Charles. Like the Italian box https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerra_di_successione_spagnola --Alberttf (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Anachronistic map of the Caribbean
The map in the section about the war outside Europe has a map that appears to be from no earlier than the late 19th century, since the tip of Florida is labeled as the United States, and the modern city of Miami is shown. Neither the United States nor Miami existed ca. 1700, and Florida was nominally under Spanish rule. There may be other anachronisms, but in any case a map of the region as it was during the war is needed. Rosswagner1985 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Charles of Spain and Charles of Austria
In the second paragraph and later the name 'Charles' is used a number of times referring to different people. How about replacing 'Charles' with 'Archduke Charles' in the two cases where the referent is unclear? EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. EdJohnston (talk) 15:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Duch frontier fortresses
Currently the article states "" however the section on the war in 1701 does not mention the French campaign to over-run them. This is not suprising because they were not overrun.

As the article explains "Louis therefore accepted on behalf of his grandson, who was proclaimed Philip V of Spain on 16 November 1700".

The Spanish Netherlands along with the rest of the Spanish territories recognised Philip. As the frontier fortresses in question in the Spanish Netherlands were garrisoned jointly, the Duch contingents had to leave the fortresses when asked to because war had not been declared. This left them in the hands of garrisons loyal to Spain and hence de facto to France.

So the text in the article needs to be altered to reflect this.

—— PBS (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)