Talk:The empire on which the sun never sets/Archive 2

Archive 2: threads begun 2011-2019

French Empire Anyone?

The Spanish Empire may have been large, but not very extensive. It was limited to the Americas. The Philippines were also colonized by Spain for some time, but they are not hugely significant. This article needs some major revisions as France had a larger empire and a more extensive empire. France has colonized every continent on the Earth. I know someone will try and denounce this so I will prove it by listing at least one place colonized on every continent. North America: Canada, Haiti, Various Caribbean islands South America: French Guiana Europe: France, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg, Monaco Africa: Many countries, Algeria, Senegal, to name a couple Asia: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Parts of India, (French indochina) Antarctica: French Antarctic Holdings Australia (Oceania): Many islands throughout the Pacific, New Caledonia

I would visit: French Colonial Empire to view a map of the former French Colonial Empire. Versus this map of the Spanish Colonial Empire: Spanish Colonial Empire.

This article is inaccurate and should be changed. While the Spanish colonial empire was large, it was confined to a small part of the world, and was still smaller than the French Colonial Empire while the French colonial empire truly had sunshine during any given time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.189.242 (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This article is NOT about empires; it is about the historic use of an expresssion!. Is this difficult to understand? Provocateur (talk) 22:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

In the same light, the Dutch had places antipodal to each other in their possession: Surinam and the Dutch East Indies (now Indonesia). It's hard to imagine that anyone took seriously the idea that "the sun never sat on the Dutch Empire". Pbrower2a (talk) 02:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Portugal

Really? Its addition seems really forced. The entire thing about the globe in personal mottos is completely irrelevant to this specific saying. This article about the saying and it's application to an empire not a empire being being described in relation to a globe because I bet many other empires not listed here have been described in relation to a globe yet still has none of the attributes (the sun never setting in the empire). Since the globe motif has nothing to do directly with a setting sun it should be removed. The quote by Luis de Camões is relevant and should stay, but not the previous paragraph. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm also sceptical about Portugal. Unless someone appears here to give a good defense of it, I would delete the whole section. --Doric Loon (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I stuck this section, tought it would be well received, regardless of the sentence be linked to the Spanish Empire and later to the British. I thought to find also quotes in future (even very close to small (or not) sections linked to the Netherlands or France) it would make more sense. If I added the Portuguese empire, we must put some other powers or states, because I have an idea to read something about the use of this phrase or similar to it about them(?). Maybe. Literature is a large source, but just researching. Obviously that was the purpose of the quote from Camões as an example, yet different, but close. In Lusíadas, is the only similar phrase, the other verses use more, it seems to me, notions of grandeur, the celestial sphere ("the World Machine" - the Cosmos Sphere) yet all of them with the same meaning: about the extent of future hemispheric or global conquests in the East, the West, etc..

More research, in "Decades of Asia" of João de Barros, Garcia de Resende and the other Chroniclers in Portugal; in German authors of the time - and even the Papacy letters or Sermons (during King Manuel and John III reigns), we would find more - or very similar, even if not the phrase literally mentioned here used by or for Charles V, Philip II and the British later; but using only a quote of Camões by now (since, again, this is about the literally phrase used mostly to the Spanish and British empires) was not yet a massive new Portuguese section for many uses or quotes that have had similar meanings, but only this sentence very near the idea for now (neither a mention in the introduction).

About to attach the Armillary Sphere of king Manuel (also used in John III`s reign and not only), and with first importance and firstly (to the sentence of Camões over the course of the sun in this article), I am surprised for your surprise (sorry for the redundancy). The expression "Globe" in D. Manuel is not only the "Globe" earthly (far from them), but heavenly. The Globe there then appears with an heavenly semantic - it was the Celestial Sphere. I think you know about, the Armillary Sphere, then understood on a geocentric perspective, astronomical and spiritual (and hence the diagonal form of the Zodiac) or already heliocentric to various minds, starting from the second half of that century. It was and it is the symbol of the Celestial Orb, and in the central plane, the Armillary Sphere is the symbol of the total course of the Sun relative to the Earth in the Zodiac - and relative to the Zodiac (The central meaning in the Armillary Sphere).

If it is inconsistent with the article, which is about the phrase, and I never forget it - I though then this edit on Portugal was good and about it - in all - but after all maybe not (?). If not, delete it;... unless (if we have time) it is done research in many authors of the century (with more verses or phrases maybe), and if justified, in any case, remains - or in case of delection, reenters. --LuzoGraal (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Appreciate the effort you've put in, but I think you have to be careful about orginal research here: you're drawing together sources to emphasise something that is not expressed in the same way in reliable sources (or is it?). If this phrase (or something very close to it) was in common usage in relation to the Portugese Empire then we need a source which says this, not illustrations of similar concepts. For example, the first section is not using the same phrase, but the poem does convey the same meaning - maybe this should be brought up to the top and the rest summarised? Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In the same way in reliable sources? No; it seems to me that in most of them, no (but I need to read more about), but in other ways yes. Well, "Os Lusiadas" (as exemple) at the end of that century was in common usage (quotes etc., and more popular, at least in Portugal and Iberian Peninsula, than many other works or quotes - but the book and its verses as a whole, especially verses at the beginning, which includes these ones (Canto I).). Then it will be easier to find a source to attach the existing ones there, I think(?!). Well, in the strict sense perspective, and given the traditional association with the use of the phrase (and it was, of course, for or by Charles V, Phillip II of Spain and Britain. Fact), then duplicated by historiography (in large scale), especially Anglo-Saxon and Hispanic (and not only), then the edit is original research, therefore, subject to removal. And if the sentence here is literal (not other forms thereof), the option is also for the removal of the section. On the other hand, if it is to be, or if there is interest in this, for enrichment of the article and a broader interpretation of the subject can be maintained (and probably under a new section title), since there was apparently this wide idea in Portugal, but in other formulas for the same sense, you can maintain; - or, with a new title (not as Spain, UK and USA title-sections, were the literal phrase was widely used), with... prior ways under this idea, alternative formulations,...in Portugal (and not only) etc.. Something like this or meaning this. Other thing/Apart: the content of the section is not original research, of course (I mean, the content, per si, without this debate about the article and its meaning), but rigorous and with reliable sources, and even short, by the absence of more citations, if the meaning of Article would be theoretically wider (but only in such case, of course). --LuzoGraal (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I am going to remove the paragraph about the orbs because it is not directly related to the phrase in question while the poem can still possibly be.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Thou mighty King, whose high Empire

The Sun, soon rising, see first,

Sees it also in the middle of the Hemisphere,

And descending, sights it as the last one.

The central idea of the expression is that the sun never sets; it is clear that Camões poem does not express the same idea, quite the opposite. The verse and the earlier statements about orbs should be moved to the Portuguese Empire page. Provocateur (talk) 13:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks The Emperor`s New Spy. As you wish or you find most insightful or consistent - and because I needed more time to research more about this. By now you had to make a decision.--LuzoGraal (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Provocateur, only a "repair": though you're right, Camões`s verses refer astronomically to an empire that covers an entire hemisphere or half the planet, at least symbolically even a little more - or more - and therefore astronomically and planetary, is an empire where the Sun never sets. About the literal aspect, you are right and it is an objective fact, however, in the literary field and poetic interpretation, metaphorical and symbolically (and astronomically) those verses refer to an empire where the sun does not set. And with this we are not saying that those verses fit this article. Maybe not, or only in parallel perhaps yes - but it is a note on the same.--LuzoGraal (talk) 18:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This is poetry Luzo. We're talking about using words to evoke images. The expression of this article is based on the image of a sun that never sets, ie, is fixed in the sky. Camoes verse, on the other hand, employs the images of a rising, moving and setting sun. The hemisphere is the sky across which the sun is moving. Provocateur (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Keep it simple?

Having come here to discover whether it is still the case that the sun never sets on the scattered possession of the United Kingdom, I am frustrated by the lack of a straight answer. Can I propose that we need for each empire cited (note that empire is a technical term) we should start the section with the statement: from X to Y it was true of this one, though calculating X could be problematic. And the determination of those dates would make an excellent high school project, if anyone is in a position to hand out such assignments. Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The important thing is not when or whether it was true, but when and how people found it politically useful to say it. This is all about the culture of self-legitimation, not about the realities of power. --Doric Loon (talk) 16:09, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Which was one of the reasons I wanted to get rid of the bloody maps - they're a distraction from the imperialist bragging behind the expression. Perhaps we could have images of symbols from those times or ancient maps.Provocateur (talk)

Agreed. --Doric Loon (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

XKCD's Randall Munroe calculated for his "What If" article series that the sun has not yet set on the British Empire (counting Britain and the British Overseas Territories, but not Commonwealth nations), only due to the ongoing possession of the Pitcairn Islands. If and how this should be integrated into the article, I leave to regular editors of this subject. -- saberwyn 06:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Before Doric Loon's head pops I will answer this and say I don't think we should include a reference to this. The article is about the historical use of the phrase, not the actual distribution of overseas territories. In any case I think we'd be looking for reliable historical sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

My unpopped head is duly grateful! --Doric Loon (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Os Lusiadas, Portugal, does not belong

The Portuguese epic poem, Os Lusiadas, Canto I, refers to the rising of the sun, its daily movement across the sky ("hemisphere", ie, the half sphere or dome of the sky, as it appears to a person on the ground) and its setting; therefore the Os Lusiadas does not belong in this article about an expression which has at its heart the image of a never setting sun and therefore by implication, a never rising and never moving sun. Provocateur (talk) 05:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The empire on which the sun never sets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110410121756/http://www.mun.ca:80/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/pla/PLA07.HTM to http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/pla/PLA07.HTM

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:11, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disney

User:Wiki-Ed, while I see why you say "This article is about historical empires: Disneyland is a theme park. Start a new article if you want to talk about other things the sun doesn't set on", the fact is that the article is about "certain global empires that were so extensive that there was always at least one part of their territory that was in daylight." Disney Parks fits this, because of how many parks there are and their locations. I am not the only one that thinks this or uses this term to describe them, as you can see from the three references in the article. I purposely put it under "Other Uses" section rather than just being Disney, because it is as common as the uses for the three countries, but it is still used. I am writing this here, because I really don't want to start an edit war with you. Elisfkc (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The Walt Disney company is not an 'empire', it is not ruled by an emperor and it does not govern a collection of territories. I am, of course, familiar with the informal use of the term to cover multinational enterprises, but that is generally applied to companies dominated by a single powerful individual (e.g. Rupert Murdoch, ) rather than a board, as is the case with Disney. In any case we make it clear in the introduction that we are talking about historical empires, not companies. Furthermore, your sources do not use the word "empire", they simply say that the sun never sets on... There are lots of things the sun does not set on; this article is not a list of those things, regardless of whether we can find sources showing that someone says that they are. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The empire on which the sun never sets. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410121756/http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/pla/PLA07.HTM to http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/acampbell/pla/PLA07.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:25, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Reversion explanation

Hi Wiki-Ed. Can I get an explanation please of this reversion? There was no edit summary. As far as I can tell, the paragraph was reliably sourced and discussed a fact relevant to the article's topic. Thanks, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 20:55, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseum above. This is article is about historic use of a phrase, not modern geographic trivia. And that most certainly isn't a reliable source. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Coming to a new article, it can be difficult to be aware of its history, and we do appreciate you contributing, LukeSurl. But Wiki-Ed is right that reaching this consensus was exhausting, and it would be better to stick with it. --Doric Loon (talk) 11:00, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

@Wiki-Ed: The source is reliable. If you prefer, I can cite the exact same text appearing in What If?: Serious Scientific Answers to Absurd Hypothetical Questions, a published and widely-reviewed book. The online citation would however seem preferable as that can be more easily followed up by readers. Additionally/alternatively there is a New York Times article from 1997 which states the same fact more succinctly.

As to whether such information is in scope, I would like to restart the discussion, which, as far as I can tell, was last discussed extensively in 2007. I would contend that, where reliable sources have evaluated whether an empire (in the strict sense of sovereign territorial possessions) fulfils this criteria, this is in scope of this article, and it would be of interest to readers to briefly mention such a fact. Of course, we should definitely avoid people working this out themselves and demand reliable sources. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Website or book: it is not a reliable source for a historical article. Nothing has changed since 2007 or any of the other times we've discussed this. The Spanish/British etc empires have not suddenly sprung back into existence. Including factoids from non-historial sources could suggest to the casual reader that these empires still exist because of a few tiny islands. This would be misleading so we do not include it. It is a phrase from the past, about the past. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

The relevancy of the phrase should be determined by the context in which it is discussed in reliable sources. The 1997 New York Times article discusses the phrase in a then-contemporary, now-historical context of the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Verifiability does not mean it's balanced. This is why we are selective about the sources we use. On one hand we have thousands of reliable sources asserting that the British Empire ended; some go up to 1997, but none go beyond. Against that we have a few scattered instances of individuals writing blogs or newspaper articles asserting that this phrase is valid - and, by extension, that the BE still exists - because of two tiny islands. This is the kind of content one might expect in a newspaper, but not in a historical source, hence using the latter but not the former to support historical articles. We should not give undue prominence to fringe views by reflecting them here: to do so is misleading for readers. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Ah OK. I'm not trying to claim that the British Empire is still an extant entity. I thought the wording of my edit (in particular the link to "British Overseas Territories") didn't purport that. Is there any wording that would be adequate to you recognises that reliable sources are discussing this phrase in terms of the post-1997 situation? --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:51, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, that's my point. RS are not discussing this. You've found two sources - there may be a few more - but it is not a phrase that is being discussed or debated in any meaningful way. Since 1997 there have been thousands of books, journals etc covering this topic; some mention the remaining islands, but they don't use the phrase. Giving it coverage in an encyclopedia lends it credence, hence the rules on weighting under WP:NPOV. Two sources against thousands is not balanced. The only way we could include anything like this is if we copied the approach used on the Flat Earth article ('Modern Flat Earthers'), but even then I don't think there are enough sources to justify inclusion, even trivially. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Please reach consensus here for changes and let's avoid anachronism

Calling the Universal monarchy (called Empire on which the sun never sets) that Charles V wanted to establish the "Empire of Charles I of Spain" is anachronism and diminishes the importance of his son Philip II of Spain. The important relationship of Charles V with Spain is well-explained in the article but he was not born there nor he ruled his territories (HRE/Burgundy/Castille-Aragon/Americas) only from there (his court was itinerant). "Spain" was a geographic term at the time: it meant "Iberian peninsula" (so yeah it included Castille and Aragon, but also Portugal for example). Philip II is behind the creation of a modern spanish nation-state, centralized and with a distinct metropole. Charles V had still the medieval idea of the Empire and considered himself a successor of Augustus and Charlemagne.

The alternative is to say that the Empire of Charles V included the "Empire of Charles I of Spain" in it and separate those territories from burgundy, the HRE and the areas of the americas not called "New Spain" (which would be Mexico). But again, it's anachronism and there's no need to do that as it would leave out the Low countries, the HRE, south america, the Asian territories where Magellan arrived and German colonization of the Americas. But the biggest problem with "Charles I of Spain" is that he never used that title.

On the other hand, Philip II was totally Spanish and moved to Madrid to rule from there. He also inherited many territories from Charles V and added Portugal. So for me, there's no need to change this and it doesn't reduce the grandeur of Spain at all (It's also explained that the conquests of Americas during Charles V's reign were done by the conquistadores). It gives the correct understanding of things to the reader.

Regarding the maps...the diachronic maps of the Spanish Empire that I found on wiki are incorrect. One includes the HRE and the other has a bunch of mistakes (for example in Tuscany, the region of Siena wasn't ruled by Spain). So I personally put the map of the spanish empire in 1598, but if someone finds a better map I'll be happier. I've also put a map of the British empire in 1919, rather than a diachronic map, so that both spain and britain are treated the same.

Barjimoa (talk) 09:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Carlos V/I

Carlos I, considered like this for being the first King of Spain, was before King of the Spanish Empire that of the Holy Roman Empire. It gives exactly the same if at that moment they called it in a fractional way. By that same rule then Philip II would be king of Spain because the term "Spain" is a more modern name.

De facto Spain has existed since 1516, because for the first time a single king governs throughout the Spanish territory.

And the phrase was used to describe the enormous globality of the Spanish Empire, not that of the Holy Roman Empire.

See: https://www.britannica.com/place/Spain/Kings-and-queens-regnant-of-Spain JamesOredan (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Wouldnt be* JamesOredan (talk) 11:17, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this here, I see what you mean. And I perfectly know that "Spain" is a term used by historians to refer together to Castille and Aragon since the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand. The problem is that Castille and Aragon didn't include the HRE and the low countries etc. So saying Carlos I of Spain (which is an anachronism as he never referred to him that way) with that map creates a problem, a problem that we don't have with Philip II of Spain.

Also, I've read his entire biography and he always referred to himself as Charles V and the sources about him (like guicciardini) refer to him as "Kaiser/Cesare". Cortes wrote to him and named him Charles V. That doesn't mean that the Holy Roman Empire included Spain obvioulsy, it's just that it was the title he used. In fact, I've removed "Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor" and mantained just Charles V of Habsburg.

I see your point however and I'm thinking how we can solve this. As I said we may mantain just Spain and New Spain, but that diminishes his dominions and it makes complicated to understand the passage from him to Philip II territories.

However, for now I have to revert again your reverse because the rules of wikipedia are clear on this. We first have to reach a consensus here. As I said I see the point but I can't eventually modify the map if I'm constantly reverting this to the pre-edit war version. Thank you.

Barjimoa (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The phrase referred to in the article refers to the first time in reference to the Spanish Empire during the reign of Charles I.

Therefore the logical thing would be not to put it in the background or differentiate completely from the "Empire of Charles V", which is very wrong and ambiguous, because Charles V refers to the Holy Roman Empire and not the Spanish Empire.

Therefore I see completely logical to join the term Spanish Empire with the name of Carlos I / V JamesOredan (talk) 11:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't know. It was a composite monarchy with no metropole, the creation of Madrid as a global capital is the result of the policies of Philip II who settled in Spain and stayed there with a fixed court. The conquistadores referred to him as Charles V, and certainly no one referred to him as Charles I of Spain. This is why I left only Charles V with no reference to HRE or Spain attached to the title. The way it works is that "Charles V" was the Imperial title. His highest title. So people referred to him that way. Titles were not really connected to the territories prior to nation-states. That began, to some extent, exactly with Philip II and became ultimately true during the 17th century.

Barjimoa (talk) 11:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I repeat, both the Spanish Empire and Spain are modern concepts that historians have agreed to use consensually because it is the most correct contemporary form.

The Conquistadores were soldiers explorers of the Spanish Empire, not the "Empire of Carlos V" and Carlos V of the Holy Roman Empire was 3 years before Carlos I of SPAIN, I consider widely as the first King of Spain. JamesOredan (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

"Carlos or Charles". More correctly Charles, specifically for Charles V. JamesOredan (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion you should eliminate Charles V and everything related to the Holy Roman Empire, and use Charles I / Carloa I, because it was the Spanish Empire to which the phrase was applied during the reign of Charles I. JamesOredan (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The fact that he was King of Castille and Aragon in 1516 surely doesn't make the Holy Roman Empire spanish, does it? Same is true for the fact that he was burgundian since 1506, that doesn't make Spain a part of a "flemish empire". Certainly modern historians don't see the Empire of Charles V as only its spanish part. It included many different nations, and the whole point was to create a universal monarchy. There were german colonisers in venezuela and protuguese explorers in the philippines. But as I said, we can change that map.

Barjimoa (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I do not say that Carlos I King of SPAIN, had only Spanish territories, but it was under the Spanish aspect with which the phrase was coined in reference to the Spanish Empire.

They have already reversed you in another article the same. Carlos V is I from Spain. And the Conquistadores (the vast majority of the Reconquista veterans) were Spaniards, many of them from Extremadura. Stop separating from Spain something as iconic as the Conquistadores. JamesOredan (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well we can do that but in so doing we remove a part of his "empire on which the sun never sets" (which included all his dominions) for anachronistic reasons. That is my only fear.

Barjimoa (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Charles V / I did not have an only and unified Empire. Charles V / I had 2 completely independent and different empires. One the Spanish Empire (From 1516), and another the Holy Roman Empire (From 1519)

The phrase was coined only and exclusively to define the Spanish Empire. JamesOredan (talk) 13:51, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope, that's the problem. It was used before Philip II. For example Ludovico Ariosto used to reference all the dominions (European + American) of Charles V with that term and Ariosto referred to him as Holy Roman Emperor obviously. Also for him there was no Spanish Empire + HRE because as you said it's a later definition historians use. He was a monarch of a number of states: Castille, Aragon, West Indies, New Spain, German venezuela, Peru, Burgundy, Milan and plus he was Emperor of the HRE. All of this made up the Empire on which the sun never sets. See what I mean and where is my problem? With Philip II you don't have that problem. Because he was spanish and ruled from Spain. With Charles V we have that problem.

Barjimoa (talk)

Yes. The Spanish Empire was historically known as Hispanic Monarchy and included Europe and the Americas, and predates Charles I / V. There never existed a unified Empire as such during Charles, there were 2, the Spanish Empire and the Holy Roman Empire, the latter had no possessions in America.

Do not mix the Holy Roman Empire with the Spanish Empire. JamesOredan (talk) 14:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I tried to explain the point: There weren't just two. It was a composite monarchy. There were a lot more. The point is that "Empire on which the sun never sets" was coined for Charles V (not for Philip II) and, for example, included German states and German venezuela (as long as it existed). So that is the problem. I don't know why you don't to see it. It's not that I like to have that problem. It's just a problem.

Barjimoa (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The phrase was coined to Carlos V / I to its Spanish Empire, not to the Holy Roman Empire.

There wasnt a imperial union, because there was no national unity or cooperation (except wars) and each Empire followed its interests.

The Conquest of the Americas followed the legacy of the Catholic Monarchs (who were the ones who initiated it), not the German interests. I repeat: Do not mix the Spanish Empire with the Holy Roman Empire.

I do not care if you have a problem with it or that you do not understand why I do not agree with you. Respectfully. JamesOredan (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You say "The phrase was coined to Carlos V / I to its Spanish Empire,"

That it's just not true, James. It referred to all of his dominions, not only to the ones he had as "Charles I of Spain".

Ariosto wrote in the 1530s:

Charles V...whom God made Emperor not only of the Roman empire but of all the far extreme lands. So that the sun never sets, and the seasons don't pass, on his empire. Book 15 of the Orlando Furioso.

But it's not just Ariosto. It's full of reference to him as Emperor on which the sun never sets including all his territories. Rabelais for example. Some attributed to him this sentence (tho it's likely not true): "My empire streches from Vienna to Peru and on my realms the sun never sets". Still gives you the idea. Barjimoa (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. It was the priest Fray Francisco de Ugalde who coined the phrase referring to Carlos I, not Charles V, and his domains of the Spanish Empire.

Later, others began to apply it to all the domains in general of Carlos I / V, and from Felipe II onwards he referred again and again exclusively to the Spanish Empire. (then in the SXIX to the British Empire, among others)

Source: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2S-dDgAAQBAJ&pg=PT13&lpg=PT13&dq=fray+francisco+de+ugalde+imperio&source=bl&ots=7IEQsmfLWa&sig=1gEZcgLOadPki_YZdHHyFjIcDZ4&hl=es&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj074e2uZHZAhUqIcAKHfJ4CUcQ6AEIXTAJ#v=onepage&q= fray% 20francisco% 20of% 20ugalde% 20period & f = false JamesOredan (talk) 17:00, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The fray simply told to Charles V that his territories were so large that the sun never sets on them. He obviosuly didn't mention Spain (nor any specific metropole), in fact "Spain" it's not quoted (the article says "Spain is the empire on which the sun never sets" but the fray only said "empire on which sun never sets") . And he obvioulsy did not include only the territories that went to Philip II as he is writing before Philip II. But so is Ariosto. So are other people. Possibly Charles V himself (tho I found no evidence of him saying this). But whatever, the point is that during Charles V's lifetime people did use the term for all of his dominions and many books today do.

Barjimoa (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Incorrect. The Fray referred to him as Carlos I, king of what Spain is. Referring to the Hispanic Monarchy (Spanish Empire), which was the first global empire before Carlos I acceded to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire. In addition, the Holy Roman Empire has nothing "global". EddTey (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course the HRE was not the Empire on which the sun never sets. But it was a part of it. Also I see no evidence of the fray limiting his definition (the sentence you showed me is just "empire on which sun never sets") but still the fray is not even the point as he is not the only one to make that definition.

Barjimoa (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

It makes no sense that the domains of the Holy Roman Empire of Charles V supposed something relevant to determine the phrase, because the phrase refers to the globality of the Empire, and the dominions of the Holy Roman Empire do not contribute anything since they are only European territories.

It was the voyages of Christopher Columbus and the first expeditions and conquests that gave the globality, and those territories are of the Spanish Empire, only. EddTey (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that there was also the german venezuela, but the HRE was part of the globality in the sense that it was along with Castille, Aragon and low countries the European part (the other part was the new world).

Barjimoa (talk) 17:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Edd. Regarding the source: The source that I put clearly states that the phrase refers to Carlos I and the Spanish Empire. JamesOredan (talk) 17:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

But it clearly doesn not?Barjimoa (talk) 17:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

HRE in Venezuela? You mean Klein-Venedig? In Klein-Venedig ("Little Venice") the Augsburg-based Welser banking family was offered by the merchant from Burgos Garcia de Lerma the colonial rights in Venezuela Province in return for debts owed by Charles I of Spain. It is not part of the Holy Roman Empire.

JamesOredan (talk) 17:56, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

And I never said it was part of the HRE. I'm saying an obvious thing and that is that the HRE was part of the empire on which the sun never sets and the same is true for Little Venice. I don't know If I'm not able to explain things or if you are looking at the issue only from the angle of the later development in history with Philip II. Barjimoa (talk) 18:12, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

The empire on which the sun never sets was The Spanish Empire, even before Charles I was Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. And as I have already explained to you, do not join 2 Empires as if they were one. Carlos V had 2 Empires, not one. Stop mixing the HRM and the Spanish Empire.

Historians clearly separate the Spanish Empire from the Holy Roman Empire during Carlos I, because both followed their own interests and there was no cooperation or national and cultural unity between them.

The only global and which is the subject of the phrase is the Spanish Empire, which was most of the domains of Charles I. JamesOredan (talk) 18:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know the term was never used for the period pre-Charles V. Barjimoa (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

As far as I know, yes, it is before 1519 and after 1516. Likewise, even if it was not, within the domains of Charles I / V there were 2 Empires, not one, and only one of them, the Spanish Empire reached the globality, and this is Empire to which the famous phrase referred. JamesOredan (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Sockpuppets disovered. Restoring the previous version.

Okay, so the two up here that tried to establish a new consensus and flamed the Edit War were sockpuppet and master (I should have guessed it). I still don't get 100% what their agenda was (likely historical revisionism) but they have been discovered. I'm going to restore the original version. Barjimoa (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

BTW the argument of the sockpuppet was non-sense anyway for various reasons: first of all, basically all the sources include all of Charles' domains in his "empire on which the sun never sets". Secondly, altough this is not the relevant thing for wiki, the sun physically did set on Charles' empire if you exclude his possessions in central Europe. To have the empire on which the sun never sets you need all of Charles' domains from "Vienna to Peru" as the source say. It's with Philip II of Spain and the establishment of the Spanish east indies that the sun actually never set on the Spanish Empire alone (from Peru to Philippines). Barjimoa (talk) 04:51, 12 October 2019 (UTC)