|
m Signing comment by 96.11.85.188 - "→Died poor and bankrupt: "
|
|
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
It also says'in the "archives" of Indies in Spain, that Legazpi "died a poor man with a few pesos found in his personl belongings" after his death, and this is because he spent all of his fortunes for the [[conquest]] of the Philippines, such as continuosly buying weapons, hiring soldiers, horses, and foods. He had to payoff his soldiers for their long period of service between 1564-1572, the natives and the labourers who worked for him. [[User:Gonzalo...1960|Gonzalo ]] 2:28 p.m, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
It also says'in the "archives" of Indies in Spain, that Legazpi "died a poor man with a few pesos found in his personl belongings" after his death, and this is because he spent all of his fortunes for the [[conquest]] of the Philippines, such as continuosly buying weapons, hiring soldiers, horses, and foods. He had to payoff his soldiers for their long period of service between 1564-1572, the natives and the labourers who worked for him. [[User:Gonzalo...1960|Gonzalo ]] 2:28 p.m, 24 August 2005 (UTC) |
||
Even if such a quote is in the archives, I question its accuracy. Was he not the governor of the province? Was not the province successful and profitable to the Crown and several commercial ventures? is it likely he was savvy enough to be governor and not have an ownership interest in land or trading ventures? |
Even if such a quote is in the archives, I question its accuracy. Was he not the governor of the province? Was not the province successful and profitable to the Crown and several commercial ventures? is it likely he was savvy enough to be governor and not have an ownership interest in land or trading ventures? If he were truly a poor governor of a successful venture, how did he support his family back in Mexico City? Did he abandon them? I find it unlikely that he was financially indigent and yet remained in the Philippines. Do not governors or similar positions earn a substantial salary and support? While his cash-in-hand at death may have been little or nothing (especially after any household staff made off with what they could), it is very likely he had substantial asset ownership rights. In other words, I find it likely he was "cash poor and asset rich". It would be interesting to confirm any of this and find out who took over any of his assets upon death. In the absence of of confirmation of his actual ownership and wealth, the fact alone that he was governor of a successful venture makes me question the accuracy of stating he was truly a "poor man". <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/96.11.85.188|96.11.85.188]] ([[User talk:96.11.85.188|talk]]) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Julian Calender == |
== Julian Calender == |
||
 | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on April 27, 2006, April 27, 2007, April 27, 2008, and April 27, 2009. |
I don't know which is more correct, or if both are, but shouldn't his name in the article's title at least be spelt the same way as the name used in the article contents? I'm not sure whether to make a redirect or to correct the spellings in the article. --Migs 05:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In the archives of the Indies in Seville, Spain. Legazpi with "Z" is the correct letter used.Gonzalo 2:15 p.m , 24 August 2005 (UTC)
There are also other references depicting the change of consonants in names especially when referred to by Spanish to Portugese or visa versa. I noted this also in the change of the surname Maniquis to its various forms; Manikis, Manikiz, Maniqiz, etc. CTO@large 15:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made changes to the birth year of Miguel Legazpi, this is because, he was not born in 1510, but actauly in 1502, soory! my appolgy. A lot of books particularly in the enclopedia and the internet article say that he was born in 1524, 1510 and 1505 but he was born actually earlier than that, it say's in the archives of the indies at, Seville that he was born around 1502 but did not mention what month or day. Gonzalo2:15 pm, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It also says'in the "archives" of Indies in Spain, that Legazpi "died a poor man with a few pesos found in his personl belongings" after his death, and this is because he spent all of his fortunes for the conquest of the Philippines, such as continuosly buying weapons, hiring soldiers, horses, and foods. He had to payoff his soldiers for their long period of service between 1564-1572, the natives and the labourers who worked for him. Gonzalo 2:28 p.m, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Even if such a quote is in the archives, I question its accuracy. Was he not the governor of the province? Was not the province successful and profitable to the Crown and several commercial ventures? is it likely he was savvy enough to be governor and not have an ownership interest in land or trading ventures? If he were truly a poor governor of a successful venture, how did he support his family back in Mexico City? Did he abandon them? I find it unlikely that he was financially indigent and yet remained in the Philippines. Do not governors or similar positions earn a substantial salary and support? While his cash-in-hand at death may have been little or nothing (especially after any household staff made off with what they could), it is very likely he had substantial asset ownership rights. In other words, I find it likely he was "cash poor and asset rich". It would be interesting to confirm any of this and find out who took over any of his assets upon death. In the absence of of confirmation of his actual ownership and wealth, the fact alone that he was governor of a successful venture makes me question the accuracy of stating he was truly a "poor man". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.85.188 (talk) 18:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The archives of the indies, also say that, During the time of Legazpi's conquest of the Philippines, the old (Julian Calender) was used to record, the days and months in Legazpi's letters. So all of the dates used in the Legazpi article and the Spanish conquest in the Americas, between the periods of 1492 and 1582, comes from the Julian calender, not from the Gregorian Calender. - Gonzalo3:35 p.m., 30 August 2005 (UTC)
I made some slight changes in the Legazpi article. I reverted The Conquest of the Philippines to Arrival in the Philippine Islands, the Spanish name of Felipe to Philip and Fernaõ Magalhães to Ferdinand Magellan. The article reads well now. Gonzalo 7:30 p.m., 22 September 2005 (UTC)
"The Spanish burnt over a thousand years of history, and looted idols in the images of Buddhist and Hindu Gods[dubious – discuss] in gold and made it a part of the Spanish Treasury. The church tricked their new flock into giving their golden idols up by deeming them "sacrilegious" or, if met by resistance, brought the Inquisition's torture on those who are stubborn enough to resist the influence of the Catholic Church/Spain. Aside from baptizing the natives by force and giving them Christian names, the islands had also been renamed to "Filipinas" in honor of King Philip II (Felipe in Spanish). Thus, successfully eliminating a thousand years worth of culture that even surpassed the Spanish's barbaric past as Vandals[dubious – discuss]"
This section contains many many dubious statements, and claims that violate the policy established on Wikipedia:Neutral point of view; such as claiming that one culture "surpassed" another. The section referring to the looting of "idols in the images of Buddhist... gods" clearly shows a fundamental lack of understanding for Buddhist theology. The closest equivilant in Bhuddism for gods are devas, which differ from gods in many ways (for example they are not immortal, omnipotent, and do not create/shape the universe in their theology).
It is practically common knowledge that the Visigoths' kingdom in Spain was destroyed during the Umayyad conquest of Hispania. The Vandals did not establish a permanent kingdom in Spain, but rather moved through it to sack Roman cities in North Africa. The Visigoths established a kingdom in Spain, but it was destroyed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianc26 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
