| Zeppelinoid - well, I can see no distinction between the crown of Portugal in 1600 and the crown of Aragon. You are simply wrong to say that the separate thrones of Aragon and Castile were an anachronism in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries. The Aragonese crownlands were governed distinctly from Castile, and in exactly the same manner as Portugal. Outside of Spain, *all of it*, including Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, were referred to as Spanish. There were Castilian colonies and Portuguese colonies, and perhaps the Castilian colonies are typically referred to as "Spanish," but clearly the whole thing was part of the Spanish Empire. There was no such thing as a "Spanish identity" in 1600 that included both Castile and Catalonia (much less Naples or the Duchy of Milan) but excluded Portugal. The "Spanish" Armada was assembled in and set out from Lisbon and included many Portuguese ships, for instance. The only difference with Portugal is that it was a) not united to the Spanish throne for as long; and b) successfully made its escape. If Catalonia had managed to successfully secure its independence at the same time as Portugal did, there would be little to distinguish its situation from the Portuguese one. It was also the only one to have its own colonies. I fail to see how Naples or Catalonia, which were ruled by viceroys under a personal union, are different from Portugal, which had exactly the same set-up. The "Spanish" colonies in the New World and elsewhere were, properly speaking, Castilian, as they belonged to the crown of Castile. The whole thing was called the Spanish Empire, but that includes the lands of the Portuguese crown just as much as the lands of the Castilian crown. You are creating distinctions where none exist, while also claiming that Andalusia or Asturias, which were integral parts of Castile, had a similar status to Catalonia or Navarre, which were, like Portugal, merely joined to Castile in personal union. |