為什么強(qiáng)大的西班牙在英西戰(zhàn)爭（1585-1604）中被小小的英格蘭所羞辱？
Why was mighty Spain humiliated by small England in the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604)?
譯文簡介
如果你只相信你們自己的宣傳和用以建立你的國家的民族神話，這取決于你。
正文翻譯
Why was mighty Spain humiliated by small England in the Anglo-Spanish War (1585–1604)?
為什么強(qiáng)大的西班牙在英西戰(zhàn)爭（1585-1604）中被小小的英格蘭所羞辱？
評論翻譯
很贊 ( 2 )
收藏
, knows Spanish
If you believe your own propaganda and national myths to build your nation it is up to you. Now go and read the terms of the Treaty of London 1604 and find out who won that war. I won’t tell you to read history as it was because that would be too much for you.
Terms
Spain renounces intentions to restore the Church of Rome in England.[14]
An end to English wartime disruption to Spanish trans-atlantic shipping and colonial expansion (article 6).[15][16]
The English Channel opened to Spanish shipping.
An end to English intervention in the Dutch Revolt (articles 4,5,7); England withdraws military and financial support to the Dutch rebels.
Ships of both countries, merchants or warships, could use the mainland sea ports of the other party for refit, shelter or buy provisions (article 10). Fleets of less than eight ships did not even have to ask for permission, which provided an extensive network of naval bases for the Spaniards in England to help their war against the Protestant Dutch.
The treaty restored the status quo ante bellum.[17][14] It amounted to an acknowledgement by Spain that its hopes of restoring Roman Catholicism in England were at an end and it had to recognise the Protestant monarchy in England. In return, England ended its financial and military support for the Dutch rebellion, ongoing since the Treaty of Nonsuch (1585), and had to end its wartime disruption of Spanish trans-Atlantic shipping and colonial expansion.
Ok, Spain did recognised England was a Protestant Monarchy. That was all.
如果你只相信你們自己的宣傳和用以建立你的國家的民族神話，這取決于你?，F(xiàn)在去讀一下1604年《倫敦條約》的條款，看看到底是誰贏得了那場戰(zhàn)爭。我不會告訴你去閱讀歷史的原貌，因?yàn)槟菍δ銇碚f太過沉重。
條款：
·西班牙放棄在英國恢復(fù)羅馬教廷的意圖[14]。
·結(jié)束英國戰(zhàn)時對西班牙跨大西洋航運(yùn)和殖民擴(kuò)張的干擾（第6條）[15][16] 。
·英吉利海峽向西班牙航運(yùn)開放。
·結(jié)束英國對荷蘭起義的干預(yù)（第4、5、7條）；英國撤回對荷蘭叛軍的軍事和財政支持。
·兩國的船只，無論是商人還是軍艦，都可以使用對方的大陸海港進(jìn)行改裝、避難或購買補(bǔ)給（第10條）。少于8艘船的艦隊(duì)甚至不需要申請?jiān)S可，這為西班牙人在英國提供了一個廣泛的海軍基地網(wǎng)絡(luò)，以幫助他們對荷蘭新教的戰(zhàn)爭。
該條約恢復(fù)了戰(zhàn)前狀態(tài)。[17][14]條相當(dāng)于西班牙承認(rèn)，其在英格蘭恢復(fù)羅馬天主教的希望已經(jīng)破滅，它必須承認(rèn)英格蘭的新教君主制。作為回報，英格蘭結(jié)束了對荷蘭叛亂的財政和軍事支持，這種支持自《農(nóng)敘條約》（1585年）以來一直在進(jìn)行，并且必須結(jié)束對西班牙跨大西洋航運(yùn)和殖民擴(kuò)張的戰(zhàn)時干擾。
好吧，西班牙確實(shí)承認(rèn)了英國是一個新教君主國。這就是全部。
Yes, I have also wondered how the US were humiliated by Japan in WWII…
是的，我也想知道美國在二戰(zhàn)中是如何被日本羞辱的...
“Ok, Spain did recognised England was a Protestant Monarchy. That was all.”
Not quite.
Recognition meant that Spain would no longer seek the active overthrow of England’s Protestant monarchy. Spain admitted defeat, a significant admission of failure.
"好吧，西班牙確實(shí)承認(rèn)了英國是一個新教君主制國家。這就是全部。"
并非如此。
承認(rèn)意味著西班牙將不再尋求積極推翻英格蘭的新教君主制。西班牙承認(rèn)失敗，是對失敗的重大承認(rèn)。
You better read again the terms of the Treaty. This time all of them, slowly, in high voice and without crying.
你最好再讀一遍條約的條款。這一次是全部，慢慢地，高聲地，不要哭出聲。
Spain negotiating and coming to terms with heretics? Sell outs i thought better of Spain
西班牙正在與異教徒進(jìn)行談判和達(dá)成協(xié)議？我還以為西班牙能做得“更好”呢
They also lost quite a few ships…
他們還損失了很多船。
You better count your English losses.
你最好也看看英國的損失
James I wanted peace, he was tempted once and allowed Sir Walter Raleigh out of prison to see if he could bring back treasure but failed. He was thrown back into prison and James I went ahead with a peace treaty. If you want peace your negotiating position is usually weaker. However, England gave up nothing given that it had no interest any longer in attacking Spanish shipping or wasting money sending troops to Flanders.
詹姆斯一世想要和平，他曾經(jīng)受到過誘惑，允許沃爾特-羅利爵士出獄，看看他是否能帶回寶藏，但沒有成功。他被扔回了監(jiān)獄，而詹姆斯一世則繼續(xù)簽訂了和平條約。如果你主動想要和平，你的談判地位通常會比較弱。然而，鑒于英國對攻擊西班牙航運(yùn)或浪費(fèi)金錢向佛蘭德斯派遣軍隊(duì)不再感興趣，所以實(shí)際上它沒有放棄什么。
That pirate, Walter Raleigh, lost his head in 1618 for attacking territories of the Hispanic Monarchy in peacetime. Had Elisabeth made the same with pirates as Drake and Hawkins, Spain and England could have avoided a war.
The terms of the Treaty of London are evident treason to Dutch Protestants that must have been very difficult to swallow. Let’s not forget then that England has no friends, only interests.
那個海盜沃爾特-羅利在1618年因?yàn)樵诤推綍r期攻擊西班牙君主國的領(lǐng)土而丟了腦袋。如果伊麗莎白對德雷克和霍金斯那樣的海盜做了同樣的事（砍頭），西班牙和英國就可以避免戰(zhàn)爭。
《倫敦條約》的條款對荷蘭新教徒來說是明顯的背叛，一定是很難咽下去的。所以我們不要忘記，英國沒有朋友，只有利益。
Now you are showing your subjective view rather than being obxtive.
現(xiàn)在你正在展示你的主觀觀點(diǎn)而不是客觀。
What do you mean by that? that the obxtive view is that it was “Sir” Walter Raleigh instead of the cruel pirate he was? He ordered to burn a Spanish town San José de Oru?a destroying it to the ground and murdering the people living there including women and children, just for his convenience to offer her Queen Elisabeth a colony in Guyana. All the people of San José de Oru?a were either decapitated or burned alive under his orders of extermination.
It was of poetic justice that the murderous and cruel pirate Raleigh was decapitated too in England under the demand of Spain.
你這話是什么意思？所謂的客觀就是認(rèn)為是沃爾特-羅利是個“爵士”，而不是個殘忍的海盜？他下令燒毀西班牙城鎮(zhèn)圣何塞-德-奧魯尼亞，將其夷為平地，并殺害生活在那里的人們，包括婦女和兒童，只是為了便于他向伊麗莎白女王提供圭亞那的殖民地。在他的滅絕命令下，圣何塞-德奧魯尼亞的所有居民不是被砍頭就是被活活燒死。
在西班牙的要求下，兇殘的海盜羅利終于在英國被斬首，這是一種值得傳頌的正義。
原創(chuàng)翻譯：龍騰網(wǎng) http://nxnpts.cn 轉(zhuǎn)載請注明出處
I don't care what you call Raleigh. However your hate is pouring out for something 500 years ago. You are not being very obxtive. This was a time of absolute Monarchy. A country's whole position and interests would change over night when the Monarchy changed. So the only interests and friends a country had were based on the monarch who ruled. This applied just as much to Spain, France, etc. With Spain's wealth it had sacophants who sucked up to including unfortunately the Pope who regularly puts politics ahead of scxture.
我不關(guān)心你怎么稱呼羅利。然而，你的仇恨是為了500年前的東西而傾瀉而出。你不太客觀。那是一個絕對君主制的時代。當(dāng)君主制改變時，一個國家的整個地位和利益會在一夜之間改變。因此，一個國家唯一的利益和朋友是基于統(tǒng)治者的君主。這同樣適用于西班牙、法國等。由于西班牙的財富，當(dāng)時的它有一些崇拜者，不幸的是包括經(jīng)常把政治放在經(jīng)文之前的教皇。
It’s funny how the English regularly scorn the Catholic pope putting “…politics ahead of scxture.” when their own kings and queens are heads of the Anglican church.
真有意思。英國人經(jīng)常蔑視天主教教皇，把"......政治置于圣經(jīng)之上。"而他們自己的國王和女王卻又是英國圣公會的首腦。
Unfortunately at that time politics played a large role. To a degree it still does. I have nothing against Roman Catholicism or Protestantism but any political plays should be thoroughly assessed as they usually have adverse results. I dislike American evangelicals for this too.
As for the Anglican Church it was always an umbrella for multiple denominations that all agreed to try to work together in a conciliatory fashion which is why it is in such a mess today. The Monarch was head of the church but in reality had very little to do with it. Henry VIII wanted the wealth owned by monasteries. Edward VI wanted the country to become Protestant due to his faith. Mary wanted to change the country back to Catholicism. Elizabeth I just wanted religious peace and a bulwark against Catholic sedition. James I pretty much left it alone but passed laws on withes, etc. that was based on his superstitions rather than his faith. After that the monarchy played a very small part, just like in the running of the country after William and Mary came to the throne. Politics usually had little to do with it outside of the monarch's faith and wish for security of the realm, Henry VIII was the only one who used it for private gain and that was due to his wish of a male heir over everything else and his need for money due to his mismanagement.
不幸的是，在那個時候，政治扮演了一個很大的角色。在某種程度上，現(xiàn)在仍然如此。我并不反對羅馬天主教或新教，但任何政治游戲都應(yīng)該被徹底評估，因?yàn)樗鼈兺ǔa(chǎn)生不利的結(jié)果。因?yàn)檫@一點(diǎn)，我也不喜歡美國的福音派。
至于英國圣公會，它一直是多個教派的保護(hù)傘，這些教派都同意以和解的方式努力合作，這就是為什么它今天會陷入如此混亂的局面。君主是教會的首腦，但實(shí)際上與教會的關(guān)系不大。亨利八世想要修道院所擁有的財富。愛德華六世希望國家因他的信仰而成為新教徒?，旣愊氚褔腋幕靥熘鹘?。伊麗莎白一世只是想獲得宗教上的和平，并成為反對天主教叛亂的堡壘。詹姆士一世對這方面幾乎不聞不問，但卻通過了關(guān)于巫師等的法律，這些法律是基于他的迷信而不是他的信仰。此后，君主制只發(fā)揮了很小的作用，就像威廉和瑪麗登基后國家的管理一樣。政治通常與君主的信仰和王國安全的愿望無關(guān)，亨利八世是唯一一個利用政治謀取私利的人，這是因?yàn)樗Ｍ幸粋€男性繼承人而不是其他東西，以及他因管理不善而需要錢。
“We have never lost a war, we are the greatest nation ever” is certainly something that was transmitted well to the colonies…
"我們從未輸過一場戰(zhàn)爭，我們是有史以來最偉大的國家"，這句話肯定有很好地傳遞給殖民地...
Nobody wins a war. It’s just endless suffering for the poor families who die for the rich families. Every developed nation is guilty of it.
The only ‘just’ war is a war with the sole purpose of protecting life and defending your land.
沒有人能夠贏得戰(zhàn)爭。這只是為富人家庭而死的窮人家庭的無盡痛苦。每一個發(fā)達(dá)國家都有這樣的罪過。
唯一'公正'的戰(zhàn)爭是以保護(hù)生命和保衛(wèi)自己的土地為唯一目的的戰(zhàn)爭。
I was just mocking how the Us (the colony) believe they have never lost a war and create all kinds of subterfuges on Vietnam or Afghanistan…
我只是在嘲笑美國（殖民地）如何相信他們從未輸過戰(zhàn)爭，并在越南或阿富汗問題上各種吃癟......
I see a lot of silly business when I read through these posts. And please forgive me if my response was to your post and not the original one.
I have to admit though that the vast majority of American people that I’ve met are friendly and decent.
it’s the same the world over. The minority make the loudest noise.
I find people in general to be mostly decent regardless of where they were born.
當(dāng)我讀完這些帖子時，我看到了很多愚蠢的事情。如果你以為我的回應(yīng)是針對你的帖子而不是原來的帖子，請?jiān)徫摇?br /> 但我不得不承認(rèn)，我所遇到的絕大多數(shù)美國人都是友好和體面的。
這在全世界都是一樣的。少數(shù)人發(fā)出最響亮的聲音。
我發(fā)現(xiàn)一般來說，人們大多是體面的，無論他們出生在哪里。
So Spain admitted that removing the protestant monarchy was a failure. And from 1604 Spain went into decline while England and the rebel scum in the Netherlands became more powerful than ever. I call that a massive strategic failure for Spain
所以說啊，西班牙承認(rèn)取消英國的新教君主制是一個失敗。而從1604年開始，西班牙進(jìn)入了衰落期，而英國和荷蘭的叛亂則變得比以前更強(qiáng)大。我稱這是西班牙的一次大規(guī)模戰(zhàn)略失敗。
And what happened to Spain and England in the three hundred years that followed? One became the Empire upon which the Sun Never sets - what happened to the other one?
在隨后的三百年里，西班牙和英國發(fā)生了什么？一個成為了日不落的帝國--另一個發(fā)生了什么？
Spain was the first Empire upon which the Sun Never sets. British were only second, in fact they copied that theme from the Hispanic Monarchy, as it was first said by King Felipe II of Spain. Then as all Empires they fall. Spanish Empire lasted for over 300 years and British Empire lasted about 150 years.
西班牙是第一個"日不落"帝國。英國只是第二個，事實(shí)上他們從西班牙君主制那里復(fù)制了這個說法，因?yàn)檫@是西班牙國王費(fèi)利佩二世首先說的。然后，正如所有的帝國一樣，它們都會衰落。西班牙帝國持續(xù)了300多年，大英帝國持續(xù)了大約150年。
British empire lasted for well over 150 years, more like 300 years. In which it managed to by far and away surpass that of the Spanish in terms of size and population.
大英帝國的持續(xù)了超過150年，更像是300年。在這期間，它在規(guī)模和人口方面都遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過了西班牙。
The British Empire after the independence of the USA could not be considered an empire but mere small territorial possessions until late XVIII or early XIXth century, particularly after the independence of the USA. It did not last 300 years, otherwise it would be existing today and many decades more for it to last.
By population, yes it was the largest as it included India that had many hundreds of millions of people even if I am not sure if the British care for them at all as I have not seen in India the expected British colonial legacy in their cities other than New Delhi’s goverment premises built as late as just 100 years ago.
美國獨(dú)立后的大英帝國不能被認(rèn)為是一個帝國，而僅僅是一個小的領(lǐng)土屬地，直到18世紀(jì)末或19世紀(jì)初，特別是在美國獨(dú)立之后。它并沒有持續(xù)300年，否則它今天就會存在，而且還會持續(xù)幾十年。
按人口計算，它是最大的，因?yàn)樗ㄓ袛?shù)億人口的印度，即使我不確定英國人是否關(guān)心他們，因?yàn)樵谟《?，除了?00年前建成的新德里的政府大樓之外，我沒有在他們的城市看到預(yù)期中的英國殖民主義遺產(chǎn)。
That’s completely untrue. It was certainly considered an empire with its colonies around the world including many in Africa, Canada, and India - far exceeding the size of Britain itself, multiple times in fact.
India has been hugely influenced by Britain through politics, laws, and through to the army itself. English is a national language of India.
這完全不符合事實(shí)。它當(dāng)然被認(rèn)為是一個帝國，它在世界各地的殖民地包括非洲、加拿大和印度的許多殖民地--遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)超過英國本身的規(guī)模，事實(shí)上是很多倍。
印度在政治、法律和軍隊(duì)上受到英國的巨大影響。英語是印度的一種國家官方語言。
It,s incredible to see how propaganda still works in2021. Until 1640 Spain was the leading power. For 150 years Spain was the most dominant monarchy, although the empire last until the end of napoleónic wars. Then, after 1640, France supersede Spain. In the second half of the 18th century France and UK could be at the same level. And even during 18th spanish armada defetead UK,s Navy Many times (and in the other way around of course).UK only could be considered as the first power in the world during Xix century. During the xvi century english monarchy was a second level actor in Europe. Far from Spain, France or even far from the italian regions or the ottamn empire. What makes difference between UK and other european countries with glorious past like France, Spain or Italy is that england (and dutch) always had a good propaganda and in particular that nowadays we are still influenced, somehow, by this propaganda because the us móvies and pop culture consider itself as a continuation of the UK history.
令人難以置信的是，在2021年，宣傳工作仍在發(fā)揮作用。直到1640年，西班牙都一直是領(lǐng)先的大國。150年來，西班牙是最有統(tǒng)治力的君主國，這個帝國一直持續(xù)到那不勒斯戰(zhàn)爭的結(jié)束。然后，1640年后，法國取代了西班牙。在18世紀(jì)下半葉，法國和英國可以說處于同一水平。即使在18世紀(jì)，西班牙的艦隊(duì)也數(shù)次打敗了英國的海軍（當(dāng)然也有相反的情況），英國只有在19世紀(jì)才能被認(rèn)為是世界第一強(qiáng)國。在十六世紀(jì)，英國君主制只能算是歐洲二流水平。遠(yuǎn)不及西班牙、法國，甚至意大利地區(qū)或奧特曼帝國。英國和其他擁有輝煌歷史的歐洲國家（如法國、西班牙或意大利）的不同之處在于，英國（和荷蘭）一直有良好的宣傳，特別是如今我們?nèi)匀皇艿竭@種宣傳的影響，因?yàn)槊绹拿襟w和流行文化認(rèn)為自己是英國歷史的延續(xù)。
None of what you have said contradicts what I have said. U.K. was the dominant power in the 19th century and on the world stage perhaps a bit before then.
The Royal Navy was far and away better then it’s contemporaries
你所說的一切都與我所說的不矛盾。英國是19世紀(jì)的主導(dǎo)力量，在世界舞臺上也許更早一些。
皇家海軍遠(yuǎn)比它同時代的國家要好得多。
Jose please don’t confuse England, a middle ranking European country with the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, often shortened to Great Britain, which was at one time The worlds largest unitary authority. They are not the same geopolitical organisation.
Great Britain gloriously embraces the Celtic nations of these islands which England largely does not. ( my apologies to our Cornish cousins)
何塞，請不要把英格蘭這個歐洲的中等規(guī)模的國家與大不列顛及北愛爾蘭（通常簡稱為大不列顛）混為一談，后者曾一度是世界上最大的單一制政府。它們不是同一個地緣政治組織。
大不列顛光榮地接納了這些島嶼上的凱爾特民族，而英格蘭基本上沒有。(我向我們的康涅狄格表親道歉)
No, certainly I do not confuse England with Great Britain. However, due to the long previous historical relation with England and its capital London, since the Kingdom of Castile and the Kingdom of Aragon, it is usual in Spain to denominate England and English to the whole of Great Britain and the British who have maintained the capital in London and speak English. Wrong as it is this Englishzation of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I try to not fall into the error. I also take note of the Celtic component of your claim.
不，我當(dāng)然不會把英格蘭和大不列顛混為一談。然而，由于自卡斯蒂利亞王國和阿拉貢王國以來與英格蘭及其首都倫敦的長期歷史關(guān)系，在西班牙通常將英格蘭和將首都保持在倫敦并講英語的英國人都稱為大不列顛。盡管這種對威爾士、蘇格蘭和北愛爾蘭的盎格魯化是錯誤的，但我盡量不陷入這種錯誤。我也注意到了你所說的凱爾特人的成分。
Actually, the Spanish Empire reaches its biggest extension during the second half of the XVIII Century. That was just before Britain stabbed its supposed allied Spain (and maybe even Portugal) in the back, getting sure the Napoleonic Wars on Iberian soil resulted in the biggest level of destruction while supporting revolts in America. Nice allies, you seem to be, yes.
實(shí)際上，西班牙帝國在十八世紀(jì)下半葉達(dá)到了最大的擴(kuò)張。那是在英國對其所謂的盟友西班牙（甚至可能是葡萄牙）的背后捅了一刀，確保在伊比利亞土地上進(jìn)行的拿破侖戰(zhàn)爭導(dǎo)致最大程度的破壞，同時支持美洲的叛亂之前。你們真是不錯的盟友，是的。
Why do people respond to such ridiculous questions? Non of us were even born back then, we’re all friends these days although the Spanish are better at football and dancing and we make better rock bands
為什么人們會對如此荒謬的問題做出反應(yīng)？我們甚至沒有人在那時出生，我們現(xiàn)在都是朋友，盡管西班牙人在足球和舞蹈方面更出色，我們的搖滾樂隊(duì)也更出色。
Not about what’s the current status. I know what is current status and the history of XIX and XX centuries. But the question is about XVI century. And in the XVI century , yes or yes and the history is there for study it, Spain ruled the world. And in the XVII and XVIII too. And England was an ongoing and growing power (but weaker than Spain) and Netherlands… Netherlands was nothing important. They were good commerciants and their naval power was built around that concept (in fact, british too) but it was a medium power. Never was a big power.
這與現(xiàn)狀是什么樣無關(guān)。我知道現(xiàn)狀是什么樣，也知道十九和二十世紀(jì)的歷史。但問題是關(guān)于十六世紀(jì)的。在十六世紀(jì)，是的，西班牙統(tǒng)治了整個世界，這可以從歷史研究中得知。而在十七和十八世紀(jì)也是如此。英國是一個持續(xù)增長的大國（但比西班牙弱），荷蘭......荷蘭并不重要。他們是很好的商人，他們的海軍力量是圍繞這個概念建立的（事實(shí)上，英國也是如此），但它是一個中等規(guī)模國家。從未成為一個大國。
Spain for 300 hundreds years was the country that dominated the world .Spain mixed with every culture not like anglo saxon culture that killed aborigins and then made films telling aborigins were demons
三百年來，西班牙是主宰世界的國家。西班牙與各種文化混合，而不是像盎格魯撒克遜文化那樣，殺害原住民，然后拍電影說原住民是惡魔。
Tell that to the Aztec’s and multiple other South American nations of the period. I’m sure they would disagree, if they could, but they mostly didn’t survived the brutal and ruthless religious and political oppression and exploitation by Spain. The Spanish nation was almost completely funded by South American plunder of gold and other precious minerals; that was the purpose of it’s Empire, not for some fanciful notion of peaceful congress with foreign peoples.
What did Spain import in return; the Spanish Inquisition, religious intolerance and a style of politics so dysfunctional it’s left it’s mark up to the present day.
I’m not defending the British Empire either, but I am countering you Rosie picture of a benign Spanish Empire. It was very far from that!
把這句話告訴阿茲特克人和當(dāng)時的其他多個南美國家。我相信他們會不同意的，如果他們可以的話，但他們大多沒有在西班牙殘酷無情的宗教和政治壓迫和剝削下生存下來。西班牙國家的資金幾乎完全來自于對南美黃金和其他貴重礦物的掠奪；這是它建立帝國的目的，而不是為了與外國人民進(jìn)行和平協(xié)商之類的一些幻想的概念。
作為回報，西班牙引進(jìn)了什么？"西班牙宗教裁判所"、宗教不容忍和一種功能失調(diào)的政治風(fēng)格，直到今天還留下了它的痕跡。
我也不是在為大英帝國辯護(hù)，但我是在反駁你對西班牙帝國良性發(fā)展的浪漫化描述。它實(shí)際上與此相去甚遠(yuǎn)。
Sorry mate, but Spain was indeed very benign to the indigenous populations in comparison to other European nations in America, Africa and Asia. What laws did England or Holland set out to protect the indigenous populations? What Cortés and his handful of men did was to liberate the many tribes that were subjugated by the brutal and ruthless cannibal Aztec yoke.
The inquisition did not judge indigenous populations it brought them a loving god, not one to whom to offer human sacrifices.
“they mostly didn’t survived the brutal and ruthless religious and political oppression”
Oh but they did survive; their descendants are the current inhabitants of Mexico, central and South America. From the very start the Spanish monarchy encouraged marriage with the Aztec and Incan monarchies…
…they are represented at the royal palace in Madrid.
Excepting Argentina and Chile, who were influenced by the English masons, to exterminate the indigenous populations, as they did in Australia and New Zealand, to clear the land for sheep and cattle herds.
“plunder of gold and other precious minerals” since when is the mining business a matter of plundering? So it’s ok to mine in Australia, that’s not plundering, that’s building a nation right?
Spain has had to suffer the most hideous and slanderous propaganda through centuries. It’s about time they start defending themselves from outright lies and deformations.
抱歉伙計，與殖民美洲、非洲和亞洲的其他歐洲國家相比，西班牙確實(shí)對原住民非常仁慈。英國或荷蘭制定了什么法律來保護(hù)土著居民？科爾特斯和他的少數(shù)人所做的是解放被殘忍無情的食人族阿茲特克人桎梏所征服的許多部落。
宗教裁判所并沒有審判原住民，而是給他們帶來了一個慈愛的神，而不是之前讓他們提供人來做祭品。
"他們大多沒有在殘酷無情的宗教和政治壓迫下生存下來"
哦，但他們確實(shí)活了下來；他們的后代是目前墨西哥、中美洲和南美洲的居民。從一開始，西班牙君主就鼓勵與阿茲特克人和印加人的君主聯(lián)姻......
...他們在馬德里的王宮有代表。
阿根廷和智利除外，他們受到英國泥瓦匠的影響，要滅絕原住民，就像他們在澳大利亞和新西蘭所做的那樣，為牛羊群開墾土地。
"對黃金和其他貴重礦物的掠奪"，什么時候采礦業(yè)是掠奪的問題了？所以在澳大利亞采礦是可以的，那就不是掠奪，那是建國，對嗎？
幾個世紀(jì)以來，西班牙不得不承受最可怕的誹謗性宣傳。現(xiàn)在是他們開始為自己辯護(hù)的時候了，以避免公然的謊言和畸形化。
Thanks for that answer. I am tired of these revisionists british thinking that there country were better at war. England/Britain always fought with a powerful coalition; and still failed most of the time; not like Spain, France Germany or Poland.
謝謝你的回答。我已經(jīng)厭倦了這些修正主義的英國人認(rèn)為他們的國家在戰(zhàn)爭中更有優(yōu)勢。英格蘭/不列顛總是有一個強(qiáng)大的聯(lián)盟與之并肩作戰(zhàn)；而且在大多數(shù)時候仍然失敗了；不像西班牙、法國、德國或波蘭那樣。