[Historical] 304th Anniversary of the Fall of Barcelona

On this day in History, Barcelona, controlled by the supporters of Archduke Charles, the Habsburg contestant to the Spanish crown, fell to the Bourbon forces of Philip V of Spain, backed by France, in 1714, in the War of Spanish Succession, fought between 1701 and 1714.

As it is customary across (atleast) Western Nations, most National Days are established in dates that celebrate a decisive battle-victory or decisive political event that glorifies the Nation. In Catalonia's case, it's the opposite. Catalonia's National Day, or "Diada", as it's known in the region, remembers the Fall of Barcelona to Philip V's of Spain which dictated the decay/suppression of Catalonian Institutions and Laws and paved a quick-way to a proclamation of Absolutism.

The Siege of Barcelona wasn't just a chapter in the already-finalizing War of Spanish Succesion, but a battle that cemented Absolutism, abundant at the time and paved the way for a conception of Spain not as a personal union of various States and Crowns, but as a Centralized Kingdom.

The city swiftly fell to Franco-Spanish Bourbon forces after their expected reinforcements arrived days earlier, with the Catalonian holders surrendered and starting negotiations for capitulation, which were at first rejected by Philip V, who wanted to punish the population for the opposition it posed, but was overruled and soon-after, consumated.

The Defenders of the City were buried in a cemetery right by the Basilica of Santa Maria del Mar, where nowadays lays a memorial square built on top of the cemetery, to remember Catalan losses of the war, called Fossar de les Moreres.

The fall of Barcelona, as said, led to a strong repression of Catalonian autonomy, with the suppression of Catalonian Institution and Laws, as decreed by the Decretos de Nueva Planta, a series of royal decrees that repressed the rights Catalonian populations had, as inscripted in their fueros (Local-level charters that outorgated to a said population a series of rights and duties aswell as competences in various areas such as Administration, Finance and Military). The use of Catalonian language was also banned.

This holiday was first celebrated in the 1880's, then banned during the Primo de Rivera dictatorship, reinstated in the Second Republic and banned again during Franco's Spain. The Holiday was reinstated in 1976/1980 and Catalonia's Regional Parliament, the Generalitat's first decree was to reinstate the statue of Rafael Casanova* to the place where it sat before being removed during Francisco Franco's regime.

---------------------------------------------

Facepalm. Turkish armies threatening Habsburg borders in central Europe > they meddle in Spain. Seems like sometimes you don't need democracy to have stupid leaders.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 12.09.2018 at 13:56

Facepalm. Turkish armies threatening Habsburg borders in central Europe > they meddle in Spain. Seems like sometimes you don't need democracy to have stupid leaders.

This is part of the War of Spanish Sucession, fought between the Habsburgs of Austria and the Bourbons of France regarding the Spanish throne. Honestly, it is completely understandable, as Spain was the balance-tipper in an ongoing political struggle between France and Austria for the control of Europe, besides, the Ottomans weren't truly much powerful at the time and with the matter settled between Austria and France, it'd be way easier to fend off the Turks.

Általa írva Al Fappino, 12.09.2018 at 14:13

This is part of the War of Spanish Sucession, fought between the Habsburgs of Austria and the Bourbons of France regarding the Spanish throne. Honestly, it is completely understandable, as Spain was the balance-tipper in an ongoing political struggle between France and Austria for the control of Europe, besides, the Ottomans weren't truly much powerful at the time and with the matter settled between Austria and France, it'd be way easier to fend off the Turks.

Waste of energy. Spain was similar to UK - not interested in European affairs, more into colonies. Shows how both France and Austria were p*ssies to face in battle, but used Spain as a proxy.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 12.09.2018 at 16:25

Általa írva Al Fappino, 12.09.2018 at 14:13

This is part of the War of Spanish Sucession, fought between the Habsburgs of Austria and the Bourbons of France regarding the Spanish throne. Honestly, it is completely understandable, as Spain was the balance-tipper in an ongoing political struggle between France and Austria for the control of Europe, besides, the Ottomans weren't truly much powerful at the time and with the matter settled between Austria and France, it'd be way easier to fend off the Turks.

Waste of energy. Spain was similar to UK - not interested in European affairs, more into colonies. Shows how both France and Austria were p*ssies to face in battle, but used Spain as a proxy.

France and Austria met themselves on the battlefield for decades prior to the War of Spanish Sucession, just think about the Augsburg League and other incursions on Holy Roman Territory by France that met resistance by Austria on the battlefield. And even during the war they faced against each other on the battlefield..because inheriting such a large, resilient and undivided Empire (France's Bourbon's) could tip the balances of power and threaten remaining European powers.

Általa írva Al Fappino, 13.09.2018 at 09:43

France and Austria met themselves on the battlefield for decades prior to the War of Spanish Sucession, just think about the Augsburg League and other incursions on Holy Roman Territory by France that met resistance by Austria on the battlefield. And even during the war they faced against each other on the battlefield..because inheriting such a large, resilient and undivided Empire (France's Bourbon's) could tip the balances of power and threaten remaining European powers.

Most boring age ever. They could start a new crusade, with new technology and knowledge they had, liberate 25% of Europe from Turkey (continuation of reconquista), try to reach India via Persia. Instead they decided to settle with status quo.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 13.09.2018 at 12:11

Általa írva Al Fappino, 13.09.2018 at 09:43

France and Austria met themselves on the battlefield for decades prior to the War of Spanish Sucession, just think about the Augsburg League and other incursions on Holy Roman Territory by France that met resistance by Austria on the battlefield. And even during the war they faced against each other on the battlefield..because inheriting such a large, resilient and undivided Empire (France's Bourbon's) could tip the balances of power and threaten remaining European powers.

Most boring age ever. They could start a new crusade, with new technology and knowledge they had, liberate 25% of Europe from Turkey (continuation of reconquista), try to reach India via Persia. Instead they decided to settle with status quo.

1 - Reconquista is a term that does not apply in this

2- The Ottoman Empire after the defeat in the Siege of Vienna decades earlier (depicted in Jan Matejko's painting, my favourite actually) was kinda on decline and could not pose a threat to the Austrian/Hungarian frontier, from 1714 forward, it'd be just a slow decline in the Balkan area-Hungary, honestly. Keep in mind the revolts and the insurrection among the peasantry at the time were pretty common, which would draw manpower. Furthermore, it'd be in the Ottoman's best interest to just stabilize their Hungarian frontier and focus on the Mediterranean Seas and the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf to attain some sort of naval supremacy and keep their tradelines and the Turkish regions intact from landings or damaging incursions, which was what the Ottomans precisely ended up doing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matapan

That battle, despite the overall loss of the Allied forces in the war, put a check on the Ottomans growing naval power and safeguarded Italy and the Grand Republics. Nonetheless, the overall objective was attained, with the Ottomans securing Greece and basically attaining stability in the East Mediterranean. With this being said, you can't really say they could have done something, because they did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Passarowitz

3 - With what I said earlier, considering how damaging the War of Spanish Succession was and the fact that the situation had stabilized, there was no real need to just all-out crusade the Ottoman Empire, because they just couldn't, there were far more concerning problems than buying a long-lasting conflict with the turks, that would bring them nothing than further insurrection to Austro-Hungarian territories of then. France was way more disturbing to Austria/Hungary and to the Italian States than the Ottomans were (keep in mind there was some trade going on between the republics and the turks, so some economic interest plays it out on here. If you burn your client's house, do you think they'll come buy you stuff at the same rate, or any at all?).

4 - Why would Europe want to do that? Territorial control, especially in that area would be way more costly, inneficient, unstable and frankly useless to the Europeans, hence why Vasco da Gama, Bartolomeu Dias, Diogo Cão and Gil Eanes set on navigating, cartographing West Africa, breaking the then mankind's-limits chasing the dream of a maritime route to India, which Vasco da Gama accomplished, a maritime route that would allow Europe to trade with India without being subjects of those unstable, unreliable and hostile states of the middle east (Ottoman Empire & Others). Keeping a sea route was very costly, but way cheaper than having territorial control (Portugal had lots of city-entrepots across the Persian Gulf, namely Bahrein, Qatar and others, and proved to be almost inneficient to even keep an hold on it) - This not to mention you'd still have to waste enormous resources to defend the seas nonetheless, as the Portuguese and Dutch did with the Maratha's, further proving you how redundant it would be to play Alexander the Great in the 15th-18th century.

Why a land route when there's cheaper sea routes, and way more effective available?

PS: Early 18th century is actually an interesting century. 15th-18th century are pretty interesting

Általa írva Al Fappino, 14.09.2018 at 16:28

1 - Reconquista is a term that does not apply in this

2- The Ottoman Empire after the defeat in the Siege of Vienna decades earlier (depicted in Jan Matejko's painting, my favourite actually) was kinda on decline and could not pose a threat to the Austrian/Hungarian frontier, from 1714 forward, it'd be just a slow decline in the Balkan area-Hungary, honestly. Keep in mind the revolts and the insurrection among the peasantry at the time were pretty common, which would draw manpower. Furthermore, it'd be in the Ottoman's best interest to just stabilize their Hungarian frontier and focus on the Mediterranean Seas and the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf to attain some sort of naval supremacy and keep their tradelines and the Turkish regions intact from landings or damaging incursions, which was what the Ottomans precisely ended up doing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matapan

That battle, despite the overall loss of the Allied forces in the war, put a check on the Ottomans growing naval power and safeguarded Italy and the Grand Republics. Nonetheless, the overall objective was attained, with the Ottomans securing Greece and basically attaining stability in the East Mediterranean. With this being said, you can't really say they could have done something, because they did - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Passarowitz

3 - With what I said earlier, considering how damaging the War of Spanish Succession was and the fact that the situation had stabilized, there was no real need to just all-out crusade the Ottoman Empire, because they just couldn't, there were far more concerning problems than buying a long-lasting conflict with the turks, that would bring them nothing than further insurrection to Austro-Hungarian territories of then. France was way more disturbing to Austria/Hungary and to the Italian States than the Ottomans were (keep in mind there was some trade going on between the republics and the turks, so some economic interest plays it out on here. If you burn your client's house, do you think they'll come buy you stuff at the same rate, or any at all?).

4 - Why would Europe want to do that? Territorial control, especially in that area would be way more costly, inneficient, unstable and frankly useless to the Europeans, hence why Vasco da Gama, Bartolomeu Dias, Diogo Cão and Gil Eanes set on navigating, cartographing West Africa, breaking the then mankind's-limits chasing the dream of a maritime route to India, which Vasco da Gama accomplished, a maritime route that would allow Europe to trade with India without being subjects of those unstable, unreliable and hostile states of the middle east (Ottoman Empire & Others). Keeping a sea route was very costly, but way cheaper than having territorial control (Portugal had lots of city-entrepots across the Persian Gulf, namely Bahrein, Qatar and others, and proved to be almost inneficient to even keep an hold on it) - This not to mention you'd still have to waste enormous resources to defend the seas nonetheless, as the Portuguese and Dutch did with the Maratha's, further proving you how redundant it would be to play Alexander the Great in the 15th-18th century.

Why a land route when there's cheaper sea routes, and way more effective available?

PS: Early 18th century is actually an interesting century. 15th-18th century are pretty interesting

Seems as Europe doesn't have problem with invasion threats posed by muslim states throughout history(Arab invasion of Spain/Turkish invasion of Balkan - with both goals to reach Paris: 'Heart of Europe'), but one from christian nation(Russia) is frightening Europeans

Nah let's not fool ourselves, Portugal, Spain and England went full colonialism (and discovery logically) because they had weaker economies and armies than France, Germany, Austria and the rest like Poland. They couldn't spread their influence so they simply turned to the sea, expecting weaker enemies on the other shore. It was not about trading with India and bypassing volatile Middle East, that is just a story. Clear proof is bigger nations like Austria and Germany which didn't had colonies and oversea interest, until late 19th century when they went for it just for lols.

Do you contribute much to wikipedia ?
'cos that's about the historically narrow & myopic view of a seriously tumultuous period in european history on the level of an 11 yr old
"wot hates history 'cos its boring".
packing 300+ yrs of any 1 nations history into 4 sentences just not workable.
packing 300+ yrs of many nations history into 4 sentences just not tenable.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 14.09.2018 at 17:44

Seems as Europe doesn't have problem with invasion threats posed by muslim states throughout history(Arab invasion of Spain/Turkish invasion of Balkan - with both goals to reach Paris: 'Heart of Europe'), but one from christian nation(Russia) is frightening Europeans

Who said anything about Russia? How did we go from the War of Spanish Succession to a (at the time) backward nation who wasn't relevant to european stage with an untouched medieval societarian structure? Enough with your inferiority complex, jesus

PS: Between you and me, christian, europeanistic Russia died with the October Revolution that put utopian radical criminals into power and deranged the societarian mentality of a great state further back.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 14.09.2018 at 17:44

Nah let's not fool ourselves, Portugal, Spain and England went full colonialism (and discovery logically) because they had weaker economies and armies than France, Germany, Austria and the rest like Poland. They couldn't spread their influence so they simply turned to the sea, expecting weaker enemies on the other shore. It was not about trading with India and bypassing volatile Middle East, that is just a story. Clear proof is bigger nations like Austria and Germany which didn't had colonies and oversea interest, until late 19th century when they went for it just for lols.

This is where your actual ineptitude shows out. You just twisted 400 years of Colonialism by Europe and 150 years of marvellous Era of Discoveries to a frankly ignorant level of spread-around propaganda that has circulated through far-left radicalistic movements who have a tendency for Historical Revisionism.

I don't know if I should waste time educating you, but I may aswell buy my place in heaven by (trying) to put ignorance away from your brainwashed self.

Portugal did not go full colonialism because they solely had a weaker economy, Portugal (who kickstarted the Age of Discoveries, discovering 2/3 of the known world) set out with our brave seamen to the conquest of the seas and new land because we were trapped against an unpredictible, often hostile neighbour called Castille, and because our Nobility and Prince Henry (D. Henrique), the Navigator, had an urge to enrich and an urge to expand to new markets, new horizons and know the sea that has encompassed our genetics since the foundation and planting of the Leiria's 700 year old pinetree forest, who supplied our Naval Industry with the necessary wood to erect the caravels that would reach India, Japan, China, Australia (200 years before Cook), Malacca and Indonesia, Indochina and to rule Pegu, whole African coast, Persian Gulf and as far as California (we were the first to chart it). Basically, we've went colonialistic because we have a 700km long shore, we're literally bathed by the Atlantic Ocean, adding that to the fact that there were no real hostile naval powers that could endanger our enterprise of discoveries, it would be expectable that us, Portuguese, and not the Germans or the British or even the Castillians (trapped with Iberian infighting) would set out on erecting a 600-year old Empire that ended in 1999/2002.

Adding to that, basically there was political will to explore the seas, as I said, by Prince Henry, the Navigator and John I, who, after the Conquest of Ceuta (starting date of our empire) and the discovery of Madeira & Porto Santo and the Azores Islands, wanted to go deep into south and explore a possible maritime route to India, to avoid dependence on other european powers and especially, the Ottomans. That's literally the main reasons that led to us set out to Colonize and Explore, Andy..not (just) because we were weaker, we were never really interested in european infighting as France, Austria and even Britain was..but also due to our terrain and favourable circunstances that enabled our Colonial Effort and the immense prospect of riches

PS: Oh, and the fact that after the discovery of Madeira, with sugar being Europe's gold, we just used it to mass-produce sugar and get rich, and then look for more favourable land where to plant them (which would be Brazil xd).

Oh, and not to mention Lisbon was already a well-developed harbour by the 1400's, and a mandatory stopping-place in trade between North Europe and Mediterranean Nations, which would lead on to favourable conditions to harbour such enterprise.

So yes, we set out to the discoveries to bypass volatile middle east and directly trade with India, who was seen as "mythical" and paradise-worth due to the stories that reached Europe about it..there was just that curiosity. Also Portugal and Spain never set-out with the intent of oppression. Portugal had a "policy" of miscigenation, whether Spain did infact vaporize entire civilizations, as their colonialism was way more agressive.

PS2: How come we had no influence? Our royal houses were married to European Houses..the famous Charles of Burgundy, who had more power than the French monarch or the Holy Roman Emperor at the time in the 15th century, was the son of Isabel of Portugal, sister of Henry, the Navigator and John I..if that's not influence, idk what it is. Spain married their Houses a lot with Aragonese, Italian and French Houses. and Spain had permanent intervention and territory in Spain, especially in the 15th's and early 16th's centuries.. (Naples, and others). Is that not the "influence" you speak of?


Spain started colonizing because the conquest of the Canary Islands (where they genocided the Guanches) favoured them a good starting-point from where to begin. Sevilla, who had risen as a big trading-port city, being literally Spain's Economic Heartbeat had developed to an immense level that would allow it to base the Naval enterprises the spanish discoveries brought. The main reasons why Spain indeed set out to colonize was pretty much the greed need for the Nobility to enrich, and the desire for the Royals to have enough riches to further Spain in european affairs and earn its spot. Though the true big reason was the constant chase to gold Spain has always had, hence the agressive colonization and exploration of the Andes Mountains, rich in gold and silver, that supplied the world and went to Sevilla partly, and to the Philipinnes.

England started colonizing because they wanted to chase Portugal and Spain and attain the glory, richness and economic proeminence and independence those Iberian empires have attained, hence the colonization of America, and the outposts in India, etc..

Általa írva Al Fappino, 16.09.2018 at 16:53

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 14.09.2018 at 17:44

Seems as Europe doesn't have problem with invasion threats posed by muslim states throughout history(Arab invasion of Spain/Turkish invasion of Balkan - with both goals to reach Paris: 'Heart of Europe'), but one from christian nation(Russia) is frightening Europeans

Who said anything about Russia? How did we go from the War of Spanish Succession to a (at the time) backward nation who wasn't relevant to european stage with an untouched medieval societarian structure? Enough with your inferiority complex, jesus

PS: Between you and me, christian, europeanistic Russia died with the October Revolution that put utopian radical criminals into power and deranged the societarian mentality of a great state further back.

Általa írva Skanderbeg, 14.09.2018 at 17:44

Nah let's not fool ourselves, Portugal, Spain and England went full colonialism (and discovery logically) because they had weaker economies and armies than France, Germany, Austria and the rest like Poland. They couldn't spread their influence so they simply turned to the sea, expecting weaker enemies on the other shore. It was not about trading with India and bypassing volatile Middle East, that is just a story. Clear proof is bigger nations like Austria and Germany which didn't had colonies and oversea interest, until late 19th century when they went for it just for lols.

This is where your actual ineptitude shows out. You just twisted 400 years of Colonialism by Europe and 150 years of marvellous Era of Discoveries to a frankly ignorant level of spread-around propaganda that has circulated through far-left radicalistic movements who have a tendency for Historical Revisionism.

I don't know if I should waste time educating you, but I may aswell buy my place in heaven by (trying) to put ignorance away from your brainwashed self.

Portugal did not go full colonialism because they solely had a weaker economy, Portugal (who kickstarted the Age of Discoveries, discovering 2/3 of the known world) set out with our brave seamen to the conquest of the seas and new land because we were trapped against an unpredictible, often hostile neighbour called Castille, and because our Nobility and Prince Henry (D. Henrique), the Navigator, had an urge to enrich and an urge to expand to new markets, new horizons and know the sea that has encompassed our genetics since the foundation and planting of the Leiria's 700 year old pinetree forest, who supplied our Naval Industry with the necessary wood to erect the caravels that would reach India, Japan, China, Australia (200 years before Cook), Malacca and Indonesia, Indochina and to rule Pegu, whole African coast, Persian Gulf and as far as California (we were the first to chart it). Basically, we've went colonialistic because we have a 700km long shore, we're literally bathed by the Atlantic Ocean, adding that to the fact that there were no real hostile naval powers that could endanger our enterprise of discoveries, it would be expectable that us, Portuguese, and not the Germans or the British or even the Castillians (trapped with Iberian infighting) would set out on erecting a 600-year old Empire that ended in 1999/2002.

Adding to that, basically there was political will to explore the seas, as I said, by Prince Henry, the Navigator and John I, who, after the Conquest of Ceuta (starting date of our empire) and the discovery of Madeira & Porto Santo and the Azores Islands, wanted to go deep into south and explore a possible maritime route to India, to avoid dependence on other european powers and especially, the Ottomans. That's literally the main reasons that led to us set out to Colonize and Explore, Andy..not (just) because we were weaker, we were never really interested in european infighting as France, Austria and even Britain was..but also due to our terrain and favourable circunstances that enabled our Colonial Effort and the immense prospect of riches

PS: Oh, and the fact that after the discovery of Madeira, with sugar being Europe's gold, we just used it to mass-produce sugar and get rich, and then look for more favourable land where to plant them (which would be Brazil xd).

Oh, and not to mention Lisbon was already a well-developed harbour by the 1400's, and a mandatory stopping-place in trade between North Europe and Mediterranean Nations, which would lead on to favourable conditions to harbour such enterprise.

So yes, we set out to the discoveries to bypass volatile middle east and directly trade with India, who was seen as "mythical" and paradise-worth due to the stories that reached Europe about it..there was just that curiosity. Also Portugal and Spain never set-out with the intent of oppression. Portugal had a "policy" of miscigenation, whether Spain did infact vaporize entire civilizations, as their colonialism was way more agressive.

PS2: How come we had no influence? Our royal houses were married to European Houses..the famous Charles of Burgundy, who had more power than the French monarch or the Holy Roman Emperor at the time in the 15th century, was the son of Isabel of Portugal, sister of Henry, the Navigator and John I..if that's not influence, idk what it is. Spain married their Houses a lot with Aragonese, Italian and French Houses. and Spain had permanent intervention and territory in Spain, especially in the 15th's and early 16th's centuries.. (Naples, and others). Is that not the "influence" you speak of?


Spain started colonizing because the conquest of the Canary Islands (where they genocided the Guanches) favoured them a good starting-point from where to begin. Sevilla, who had risen as a big trading-port city, being literally Spain's Economic Heartbeat had developed to an immense level that would allow it to base the Naval enterprises the spanish discoveries brought. The main reasons why Spain indeed set out to colonize was pretty much the greed need for the Nobility to enrich, and the desire for the Royals to have enough riches to further Spain in european affairs and earn its spot. Though the true big reason was the constant chase to gold Spain has always had, hence the agressive colonization and exploration of the Andes Mountains, rich in gold and silver, that supplied the world and went to Sevilla partly, and to the Philipinnes.

England started colonizing because they wanted to chase Portugal and Spain and attain the glory, richness and economic proeminence and independence those Iberian empires have attained, hence the colonization of America, and the outposts in India, etc..

Wow that's a big text, speaking about inferiority complex