Independentism in Spain: Would Spain still exist if she was divided?

[Freebooter]

Perhaps a little off-topic but something I'd like to get a better understanding of. I agree that Spain couldn't exist without Basques, or the Catalans, or any of the Spanish regions. I mean, Hispanism makes perfect sense to me and it has since before I even knew that there was such an ideology. It just feels natural, but there are a couple things I don't understand.

Firstly, hasn't Spain existed perfectly fine without Portugal? Sure, there was constant conflict with Castilians and numerous attempts to conjoin Portugal with Spain, but, aside from a brief period in the XVIth and XVIIth centuries, Portugal has remained separate for nearly a millennia. So can the same logic that Spain can't exist without certain territories be applied to Portugal as well?

Secondly, what's the point of such a reunion? It seems natural for Portugal to be a part of Spain as it already is on the cultural, ethnic, and geographic, etc. levels. But Portugal's sovereignty obviously came about for a reason, and, at least from my experience, the majority of Portuguese reject the notion of a reunion with Spain. Even historically this notion was ultimately rejected. I guess what I'm asking is, can the sovereignty of Portugal be proved to be fallacious and can the sacrifice of over 800 years of sovereignty be justified?

Finally, what will happen to Portuguese territory? Will it be separated into Gallaecia Bracarense, Lusitania, etc.? Or will it remain as it is now?

I hope I don't come across as though I'm contesting Hispanism. There's just certain things I really don't understand and would like to learn more about. By all means, if this post is off-topic, I'll completely understand if it's deleted.

[Sinergia]

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos

Perhaps a little off-topic but something I'd like to get a better understanding of. I agree that Spain couldn't exist without Basques, or the Catalans, or any of the Spanish regions.
...
So can the same logic that Spain can't exist without certain territories be applied to Portugal as well?

España no puede desaparecer como desaparece un billete delante del Congreso de los Diputados.

Bajo mi punto de vista España existe aunque la partan en 1.000 trozos, otra cosa sería España como Estado, si lo desgajas está claro que ya no será el "Estado Español", será otra cosa distinta.

Secondly, what's the point of such a reunion?

¿Cuál es la razón para estar separados?

Finally, what will happen to Portuguese territory? Will it be separated into Gallaecia Bracarense, Lusitania, etc.? Or will it remain as it is now?

Éste es un punto interesante, ¿cómo se debería dividir territorialmente España? La actual división territorial no es precisamente una maravilla.

[Susi]

Torralba, please stick with English when the original post is in English... :\ I'd really love to be able to understand everything that you say but my Spanish isn't really that good.

[Theobald]

Interestingly enough, I was able to understand everything Torralba said (except "desgajas" and "trozos"), without a translator and though I have never taken any course in Spanish language. Does it mean that Northern France should be added to the Hispanist concept as well ?

[Freebooter]

Originally Posted by Torralba

España no puede desaparecer como desaparece un billete delante del Congreso de los Diputados.

Bajo mi punto de vista España existe aunque la partan en 1.000 trozos, otra cosa sería España como Estado, si lo desgajas está claro que ya no será el "Estado Español", será otra cosa distinta.

So from your perspective Portugal never truly separated from Spain?

¿Cuál es la razón para estar separados?

I was hoping someone here could explain that. I mean, surely it goes beyond "that's just the way things unfolded", right?

It was suggested previously to me that it was in England's interest to ensure that Portugal remained separate from Spain by fueling hostilities between Portugal and Castile. Perhaps someone could elaborate on this?

[Sinergia]

Originally Posted by Vasconcelos

So from your perspective Portugal never truly separated from Spain?

Technically, yes.
From a Statal perpective Portugal and Spain are separated, but Spain is more than a State.

Is like in the Reconquista, there was not a Spanish State there were five Kingdoms, but Spain existed, it was called "Regnum Hispaniae", it was an idea.

That's why I said that Spain can not dissapear.

It was suggested previously to me that it was in England's interest to ensure that Portugal remained separate from Spain by fueling hostilities between Portugal and Castile. Perhaps someone could elaborate on this?

Portugal choose the path of the secession because the Conde-Duque de Olivares" was a centralist and the reason why Portugal is now independent is because Olivares sent the Tercios to Catalonia and not to Portugal.

Perhaps today we could be discussing about Spain and Catalonia and not about Spain and Portugal.

There was a interesting article in Hispanismo.org about Portugal.

Portugal, realidad del patriotismo hispánico.

[Menydh]

Vasconcelos, I'll answer one question at a time.

First you ask if Spain has not existed perfectly without Portugal. Well, yes and no. Torralba has put it simply but just clear in his second paragraph.

Spain would exist even if she was torn apart into small segments, as it has been forever. What you were thinking of is a State which is known as Spain, but which is imposed and alien to the very essence of Spain.. that is Spain as a Nation.

Since old times our kings admitted the existance of Spain, even when there was not officially a state under that name. There were other states, namely kingdoms: Castille, Galicia, Aragon, León, Valencia, the Catalan counties, Navarre, Valencia, ... Portugal.

And though the dismembering of the Regnum Spaniae after the Islamic invasion brought about the formation of independent territories, the sentiment of belonging to Spain never abandoned the peoples... nor the rulers. And as a matter of fact, the King of Leon was recognized by all other rulers of the territories which were being formed, as Imperator totius Hispaniae (Emperor of all The Spains). Just as the Ultramontanos (people beyond the Pyrenees) identified all as Spanish regardless of their territorial (kingdom-state) origin. Or those beyond the Strait of Gibraltar.

I won't go further into discussing the nature of these newly formed territorial states, but I should notice that in my opinion there is room for speculating about the coincidence with the tribal territories prior to Roman conquest. Not only the new Christian kingdoms, but also the Muslim kingdoms which resulted from the dismembering of the Caliphate of Cordoba (Reinos de Taifas). I don't know if any historian has done any research on this, but it surely would be most interesting and helpful to understand the nature and the essence of Spain, past and present.

Now let me correct a statement by Torralba, where he says that the reason that Portugal seceded was because the Count-Duke of Olivares sent the Tercios to Catalonia instead of Portugal. That's a fact, but it is the reason why the secession succeeded, not the reason why it took place.

With the end of the Hispanic Monarchs in the Crowns of Aragon and Castille, came the Habsburgs. I am of the opinion that this was unfortunate because they diverted The Spains from the destiny that had been forged in them, which it should have been the expansion to Africa and The Americas, as well as the recovery of the Catalano-Aragonese influence in Occitania. Instead, the resources of Castille first and later the other kingdoms were diverted to Europe.

It is fair to say that the first of the Habsburg Monarchs, Carlos I (Holy Roman Emperor Carlos V) was still at least a heir of the Hispanic Monarchs for his mother, Juana, the daughter of Ferran (Ferdinand) of Aragon and Isabel (Isabella) of Castille. And as such he assumed much of his Hispanic Heritage with his Germanic heritage subdued to the Hispanic. However, he committed the first ever attempt against the Spanish nation which was the derogation of the Old Castillian Fueros. with the intention of centralising the power on his person and diverting the resources of Castille to the defense of his Habsburg posessions.

The Age of the Reconquista, of the Recuperatio Hispaniae, which coincided with the start of the Reinassance should have ended with the union of the the Hispanic kingdoms, which was to be realized with the union of Princess Isabel, heir to the thrones of Castille and Aragon, and the Infante Afonso de Portugal, son of João II of Portugal. But Afonso died shortly after and Princess Isabel married this time who would be Manuel I of Portugal. She died while giving birth to their son, Prince Manuel da Paz de Avís e Trastámara, the sworn heir to all the kingdoms of Spain except for Navarre, which would be annexed by his grandfather later.

Unfortunately Prince Miguel died with 21 months of age.

Now I would ask, who are these petty state patriots to want to deny the reunification of The Spains? I can only feel contempt for their miserable pseudo-patriotism.

Second to answer would be "the point of it". Not that any point should be needed other than uniting what should not be separated. But apart from that, it is as a united nation that Portugal and the other territories of The Spains should walk into the future.

The division, not only of Portugal, has only played in the hands of our enemies throughout history. Nowhere did Rome meet so much resistance as in Hispania. The years of war against the Gauls pale before the much longer wars againt Cantabrians, Lusitanians or Celtiberians. Unfortunately never united like the Gauls under Vercingertorix.

And yes, it played too in the hands of England and The Netherlands against Spain. Ask what benefit Portugal obtained from such alliance, other than becoming a useful piece to others.

Under the reign of King Phillip II (Felipe II de Castilla y León, Felip I de Aragón, Catalonia and Valencia, Filipe I de Portugal), son of Carlos I and Isabel de Portugal (the daughter of King Manuel I and María de Aragón y Castilla), the union was made effective.

(Notice that Manuel I of Portugal, after the death of Isabel married her other sister. It was the will of Portugal more than that of Castille to reunite the kingdoms).

But he was the last king with a decent Hispanic heritage left, through his grandparents (Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon) and his mother (Isabel of Portugal).

Hi succesor, Phillip III (II etc.) was the son of Anne of Austria and further he married another Austro-Bavarian. The Germanic element was too strong and the Hispanic character of the monarchy lost. With him starts a monarchy of useless, weaks and ill kings governed by chief ministers (the Duke of Lerma in the case of Phillip III). He started a process of centralisation (sending Castilian magistrates and ministers to Portugal and other kingdoms), to the discontent of the people, even when Lerma tried to favour Portugal.

And so on for the rest, they were incapable and unfit to rule Spain and much less so the vast Empire that they had inherited. The begining of the end. For Portugal, João IV was the king of the independence, but also the king under which started a mass migration of Portuguese to Brazil, which left Portugal nearly depleted of people. Something that marked the start of the decadence of Portugal.

Anyway, which sovereignty should Portugal lose? The still (even if only in part) Hispanic kings were the monarchs of a nation and different kingdoms, each with their courts and ministers. As some member of my family said once, I don't recognize this man as our king because he has never been crowned King of Valencia and has not sworn the Furs. Our Hispanic kings were crowned in the different territories and they swore to respect and to abide by the territorial Charters (Fueros, Furs, Forais) that our ancestors earned. It is the Fueros (I'll use the Castilian name for them) that grant us our Freedom and Sovereignty. And it is in them that any idea of state must be built.

Finally, for the territory of Portugal, in all fairness a degree of autonomy to the sub-territories should be given within the wider foral system for Portugal. Even João IV was titled King of Portugal and of the Algarves. Not just King of Portugal.


p.s. Torralba, I wouldn't judge Olivares too severely. I'm not sure if he could have done better with what he got.

[Sinergia]

p.s. Torralba, I wouldn't judge Olivares too severely. I'm not sure if he could have done better with what he got.

Is true that Spain at that time was already exhausted of all the wars, with the economic issues and all the problems of the Spanish Crown.

He was loyal to his King and all the things he done was for the benefit of the Crown , but not for Spain or The Spains.

"No soy yo nacional, que eso es cosa de muchachos"

"Tenga V. Majd. por el negocio más importante de su Monarquía el hacerse rey de España; quiero decir, señor, no se contente V. Majd. con ser rey de Portugal, de Aragón, de Valencia, conde de Barcelona, sino que trabaje y piense, con consejo maduro y secreto, por reducir estos reinos de que se compone España al estilo y leyes de Castilla sin ninguna diferencia, que si V. Majd. lo alcanza será el príncipe más poderoso del mundo".

Now let me correct a statement by Torralba, where he says that the reason that Portugal seceded was because the Count-Duke of Olivares sent the Tercios to Catalonia instead of Portugal. That's a fact, but it is the reason why the secession succeeded, not the reason why it took place.

Eso quería decir, que el hecho del desplazamiento de los Tercios a Cataluña fue decisivo, pero no la razón, lo que pasa que en inglés me salió la frase como que Portugal se puso flamenco por no ver a ningún soldado de los Tercios por las cercanías.

(Esto lo pongo en castellano porque no había manera de que me saliera la frase en inglés )

[Lagun]

Originally Posted by Theobald

Does it mean that Northern France should be added to the Hispanist concept as well ?

For every Hispanist some territories under French rule in present days are trully Spanish territories.

The Basque territories of Lapurdi (Labourd), Zuberoa (Soule) and Baja Navarra (Basse Navarre), as well as the Catalan territories of Roselló and the frenchly occupaid Cerdanya.

Finally, Andorra is also a Hispanic territory.

Until there you will have no discussion inbetween Hispanists, but there some other lands basicly what we understand as Occitania, that vary in extension depending on the different fonts, that for many Hispanists would also account as Spanish (Most of todays Languedoc, Provence, Haute Pyrennes...).

[Menydh]

[quote=Lagun;135308]For every Hispanist some territories under French rule in present days are trully Spanish territories.

The Basque territories of Lapurdi (Labourd), Zuberoa (Soule) and Baja Navarra (Basse Navarre), as well as the Catalan territories of Roselló and the frenchly occupaid Cerdanya.

Finally, Andorra is also a Hispanic territory.

I agree with the Basque-Navarran and Catalan territories, including Andorra. Another issue is how to accomodate these territories back into Spain, which in my opinion it should be through territorial Charters and Statutes, with little modifications to structures like the Consell General de les Valls d'Andorra, or the Conselh Generau dera Val d'Aran.

Occitania is a different matter.

[Lagun]

I also agree that Occitania is a different issue, in my personal concept of Spain, those are territories with a historical and ethnical connection with Spain, bur I do not consider them part of the country.

About how to rule those territories, it depends of the model you propose for Spain in general. And to be honest I am not quite sure what would be the most suitable model for the country. In general I am more of a reformist than a revolutionarist.

[Menydh]

The problem with reforming is that the current system is bankrupted enough and for any reform to be effective it would require the dynamics of a revolution.

Starting with the system of the Autonomies, which is uneven. Not to speak of the confusion in the competences between the central and the autonomous governments.

We are living in a limbo where we no longer even know what is the nation and what the state.

If I had to propose a plan of reforms, I would go as far as proposing to change also the existing known systems of state. Ever thought of a Regency to substitute both the models of Republic and of Monarchy?

[Lagun]

You spoke about the "Fueros" (old country laws).
How would you think a return to this laws would improve the situation and how do you understand this should be done? Where is the gain for the country?

[Freebooter]

I don't mean to resurrect an old discussion but I think this may be worth saying.

It's been over a month since I originally asked this question and during this time I've been doing a great deal of thinking. Thinking about where I stand ideologically, but also thinking about my own identity.

Understanding that Portugal is a state, and not a nation, leads one to the reality that "Portuguese Nationalism" is a fallacy. Not only is it easy, I'm sure, to see the irony of a self-proclaimed "Portuguese Nationalist" criticising the fallaciousness of white nationalism, but I'm sure you can also imagine how difficult it is for a person who has lived 19 years of his life thinking something to be true to wake up one day only to realise that it's pretty much a big fraud.

I have some thinking about my identity ahead of me still, which is why I wont be posting for a little while. But I would like to truly thank those who have contributed to this discussion; you who have helped me come to this realisation. I would like to blame my ignorance only on my youth, but there are certainly other factors which have played a role as well.