Talk:Spanish–Portuguese War (1735–1737)

Treaty

I don't think that the treaty which ended this war was ever known as the Treaty of Paris, and I can find no evidence that there was a "Treaty of Paris" signed in 1737. However, I don't know what the correct name should be, either. -- Deville (Talk) 00:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Result of the war

Hi @Javext. Please, before accusing someone of "Vandalism", see WP:VANDAL and WP:VANDNOT. The war was a Status quo ante bellum, also recognized by the peace treaty. The first source only mentions the victory of the Portuguese in 2 battles and the third source says it was a "hollow" Spanish victory (read the source) which proves my point of just mantaining a neutral result (Status quo) and not fight over who has more sources. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 09:38, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

@RobertJohnson35

Just because it ended with a Status quo ante bellum does not mean that a side didn't won. You can invade a territory, get expelled and then obviously the situation will remain the same before that conflict yet there's a clear winner, the one who expelled the invading force or when the invaders withdraw (diplomacy also counts). Both of the sources I gave agree that Portugal won. The second clearly states, "resulted in a Portuguese victory" and you are lying about the third. It is saying it's a hollow victory for Portugal.

In summary, Spain invaded Sacramento but their siege failed and after a year of other operations, an armistice was concluded and a reversion to the status quo. Spain failed in its goal to conquer Sacramento and the Portuguese were able to defend their territory. [1] Javext (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

That is right, the Status quo ante bellum does not always mean that neither side won, but it's a result that keeps the article neutral because the result of this war is quite complex (and it's not a lie or vandalism). In this case, if Spain lost the war, it would have lost something else besides the invasion but the Status quo ante bellum was agreed, meaning that nothing changed. The article also mentions an attack in Spanish American territory and a siege in Montevideo and the third source you cited says that "it was a hollow [Spanish] victory" and that "the colony was limited to such territory as lay within cannon shot of the fort". In fact, the article itself says that Spain was still besieging Sacramento until peace was made, which does not mean they failed but means they agreed to stop the war, but as I said it would be better to keep a neutral result in my opinion.

In the third source, when it says "it was a hollow victory", they are talking about the results of Spain, here is the full sentence: "At the peace Spain reluctantly agreed to let Sacramento remain Portuguese; but it was a hollow victory, for the colony was limited to such territory as lay within cannon shot of the fort."

(Notice how they use "but" between "Spain reluctantly agreed to let Sacramento remain Portuguese" and "it was a hollow victory" and then talk about something that benefited Spain "the colony was limited to such territory as lay within cannon shot of the fort").

However, as the Status quo does not always mean it is a draw (like you said), you can put in the article (outside of the infobox, at the start, end or in a new section like aftermath) that some sources consider this war to be a Portuguese or Spanish victory with the full reason as long as you use reliable sources and give a neutral point of view. This has worked as a solution in similar articles with the same problem. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If we have sources that prove the Portuguese won the only neutral result is Portuguese victory. The Spaniards had the goal of taking Sacramento but failed and the sources i gave already explain that. You also have to read the third source in its full context, the "hollow victory" is referring to Portugal. On page 289, it starts by saying "Sacramento's Luso-Brazilian colonists, who by then numbered about 3,000, managed to hold out until the war ended in 1737." Then, in the next phrase it says that Spain agreed to keep Sacramento as Portuguese territory. The Portuguese in Sacramento managed to defend the colony during the war with Spain and secured peace, allowing it to remain under Portuguese control. However, the victory is described as "hollow" because the colony was surrounded by Spanish territory, which was dangerous. This can also be explained by the author's usage of ";" to refer to the Portuguese and to give continuation to the previous phrase, whereas if it was referring to Spain, he would've simply used ",".

The only solution to this is by putting the result as "Portuguese victory" and territorial changes as "Status quo..." or below the result also works. Javext (talk) 16:13, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I see you still don't really understand it so I am going to split my answer into three parts.

• Your third source: I am just going to ask you one thing, why would he say that Portugal won the war and then justify it with something that is beneficial for Spain? Don't go back any further, you yourself said that he first talks about Portugal and then (this sentence) about Spain. As I told you, he talks about a negative thing about Spain "Spain reluctantly agreed to let Sacramento remain Portuguese" and then says "but it was a hollow victory" (Definition of but: an adversative, presents a contrast or exception ("They gamble, but they don't smoke.")) and then he justifies it with something that is beneficial for Spain "the colony (Sacramento which is mentioned at the start of the sentence) was limited to such territory as lay within cannon shot of the fort", how could it make sense to say that Portugal won by justifying it with something that benefits Spain? I think this is already clear, now I will move on to the next topic.
• The result/consequences of the war: I already told you that Portugal also tried to advance in Spanish America (more specifically in present-day Uruguay) during the same war, both objectives failed, Portugal didn't get Uruguay and Spain didn't get Sacramento. But it seems that you have tried to omit the Portuguese invasion of Spanish American territory which I already mentioned and it's in the article.
• What we can do to resolve this: As I already showed you, the third source contradicts you, it would be better to do what I told you before that has worked as a solution in other articles and make a section dedicated to the entire result and consequences.

I hope it has been clarified. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Third source: "why would he say that Portugal won the war and then justify it with something that is beneficial for Spain?" ; "how could it make sense to say that Portugal won by justifying it with something that benefits Spain?" He stated it was a hollow victory and gave a justification as to why it was hollow. Please don't try to educate me on the meaning of "but", I know what it means. Now, you might have not noticed, but the author used ";" instead of "," before the word "but". Had he used a normal "," then for sure it was a direct continuation of the same phrase and he would be talking about Spain. How could it make sense to say that it was a hollow victory for Spain and then justify it with something beneficial? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If it's a hollow victory then the author would justify the word "hollow" with a negative event, which is exactly what happens if you put in your head that it was a hollow Portuguese victory. Even if I explain a million times I believe you won't change your mind so I might be getting a third opinion about this source and what the author actually meant.

The result/consequences of the war: You have to understand that the aggressor was Spain and that Portugal was defending it's territory, even if it meant launching retaliatory attacks. If Ukraine now launches an offensive against Russia and losses, but still in the end manages to expel the invading force (through combat or diplomacy) they still won the war, regardless if their mid-war offensive failed and in this case it would still be in Status quo.

What we can do to resolve this: Result: Portuguese victory ; Territorial changes: Status quo ante bellum Javext (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, here I have to admit that I was wrong about the third source, I just understood what it means and I'm sorry. I still think the same about the result and consequences because it's not the same case as Ukraine since they have invaded Russia because they want to blackmail them into giving back their territory and Portugal invaded Uruguay to keep it but as Wikipedia is not about putting your opinion you can put "Portuguese victory" with those 2 sources and below "status quo ante bellum" (but not in territorial changes because it's not just about territory). Again, sorry for wasting your time. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 11:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for being respectful and understanding. Have a great day. Javext (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Have a great day too. RobertJohnson35 (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2024 (UTC)