Talk:History of Castile and Leon

Nobody seamed to care when the Californios declared their independence in 1834.

[A very slight problem here. Montrei declared independance from Alta California *after* Alta California had declared Independance. Montrei only broke away because most of the Montreiano speaking population in AC had settled there and there was an underground kind of organization that sought to "free" Montrei from AC, which had support from the peasantry (those no good spaniards hardly bring supplies and when they do it takes them forever). ]

It was the fact that California was fighting a war at two fronts, one in Montrei and one in Tejas (the more strategic area, because Montreianos weren't "invading" like the Tejanos were). Montrei was only allowed independancy because they were simply causing problems within AC and at the time, the current territory of Montrei was considered worthless swampland and grassy hills (little did they know that draining the swamps made for some of the richest farmland on the west coast).

What also helped Montreianos gain independance is that San Francisco never became a major port, because there were no encroaching "American" invaders bringing their ships and mining equipment in. San Francisco Harbor was seen as one of the Frontier areas (there AND here... Santa Rosa was as far north as the Spanish settled), and besides, why would anyone want to ship anything THAT far north when San Diego and Los Angeles had two perfectly good ports (see in this timeline Montrei had been retired as capital and the capital of AC moved to Los Angeles around 1820)? So there really was no incentive to keep San Francisco or Montrei when the AC's could concentrate their resources in San Diego and Los Angeles (which were MUCH closer together).

Montrei's harbor was also small, and even though the bay allowed Galleon access, it was still considered a long trip north, as well as a trip to a backwater where cow herding was the main practice and mostly missionaries and indios lived (as well as those "funny talking colonists").

History here as it relates to Carlos' version of IB:

I have doubts that even in IB that California would be ruled from Santa Fe. New Mexico was a separate territory and AC extended only as far as Nevada, IIRC. The main reason for colonization of California here was because the Russians were steadily moving south, which panicked the Spaniards. California actually sat idle for well over over 100 years after discovery (i believe it was discovered in 1549). The Russians actually established a fort/fur trading outpost in Ft. Ross ( Roshiya *there*) near the area of Sonoma in Northern California. Colonization only occured around the 1700's (Monterey was established in 1790).

Santa Fe means Santa Fe at Bogota, New Kingdom of Granada Chlewey

One thing also, it took so long for anything to get from Mexico to California that it's unlikely that the Spanish there would choose to adminster California from Santa Fe.

Additional thought:

Reading all of this California history has caused me to note something: Both the Spanish and the Russians were horrible at surviving. The fort in San Diego was basically destitute and starving, and the Russian fort in Sitka was on the verge of starvation (this is what propelled Nikolai Resanov to head south to see if he could get provisions from the Spaniards in California). I heard also that the Spanish also hunted bear when starving, which is odd considering the many herds of deer and pronghorn antelope it had.]

Okay. This is a second proposition:

In 1822, when the Mejicans declared independence and begun their insurrection, they claimed the whole New Leon (New Spain *here*, i.e. Mexico, Texas, California and Central America), however they had very little power to control the perisphere, mainly because the white aristocracy moved to the northeast (Tejas) where they could resist, the loyalist controlled Central America, and they did not actually care for California.

So, from 1822 to 1834, California (and Montrei), had an odd status. Claimed by both Castile and Leon and Mejico, the authorities send from the Great Viceroyalty at Santa Fe basically went, stayed, and did very little to piss off local population, which in fact was ruled by a local Junta.

In 1834, the Californians declared their independence, and fought against the Castilian garrisons in Yerbabuena and Los Angeles (quite and easy battle, as the Castilians never send reinforcements).

By this time Mejico had a much better army and did not recognized California independence. They easily invaded, and could control the major cities.

In 1840, Mejico suffers a Civil War, and the Californios fight for their independence.

So far, Montreianos are quite conformed by the situation. The nominal but weak control by either the Castilians or the Mejicans, is enough for them, as they are left alone, but when the independent Californian government is stablished, they issue and try to implement laws that are not liked by the Montreians and they fight for their independence.

--Carlos Th

Too many links?

I think there's too many links here. I don't think you should link to something unless you intend to make it an article, and a fairly decent-sized one, too. I think you have too many stubs, too. I mean, an article that has absolutely no information, such as John IV of Castile and Leon or practically no information like Cesar (which is redundant with the information already on Magdalena) really shouldn't be here, unless you intend to flesh them out. Nik 14:15, 26 Feb 2005 (PST)

Most is source material with very little edit (like adapting some links from Wikipedia style to our style. The article will be cleaned eventually, eliminating unnecesary links and making the whole one coherent text and so on. Carlos Th

Town Names

I've not had time to really go over what you've written Carlos, but I wanted to ask something, are you using Yerbabuena in reference to the old name of San Francisco? I'm a little confused as you're not referencing where it is. The only place I know of relating to AC called that, is what is now known here as San Francsico. SO, if you ARE talking Yerbabuena as the name for San Francisco, Then...

There's a problem with the Spanish fighting the garrisons in Yerba Buena. In Yerba Buena (San Francisco), the settlement was near Mission Dolores, not the Presidio, which was simply where they maintained the Soldiers. There was very little settlement near the Presidio, and in AC *there* there would still be stretches of wilderness to this day, as the city never had a reason to grow big, as it did here.

Also, Fr. Serra realized he did not like the soldiers around the converts and settlers when he founded the Mission San Carlos Borromeo del Carmelo, which originally was located a stone's throw from the presidio in Monterey (and the land was crappy to farm, and had less than ideal amounts of fresh water available), so he moved it to the present day site of Carmel. The same would apply in San Francisco/Yerba Buena. There's also the fact that much of the western side of the peninsula is sandy and a poor choice for building a settlement (this was a huge problem in creating here's Golden Gate Park - it all sits atop old sand dunes).

Also, the name of the Presidio couldn't be "El Presidio de Yerba Buena" for instance, because the various battlements were simply known as: El Presidio (General name), Castillo de San Joaquin, and Bateria San Jose. - Doobieous February 28, 2005 06:21 PST

Yerbabuena (should be Yerbabôna in *there*'s Castilian), is indeed San Francisco. Of course, I understand that that Montrei and AC *there* and Californian history *here* are your area of expertice so, please, take my articles as proposals, rather than QSS. My interest is in taking the whole Castilian realm into a coherent history. --Carlos Th

It would be better when you mention Yerbabuena to call it either San Francisco or San Françisco, since I'm following similar history here and keeping the odd name change from Yerba Buena to San Francisco. Like here, Yerba Buena typically refers to Yerba Buena island (called Îarva Buana). I'd change Yerbabuena to El Presidio if you're going to mention the Spanish attacking the San Francisco Peninsula (Which i'm still curious as to why they'd even bother? It would've been a minor presidio, and sparsely populated). - Doobieous February 27, 2005 18:57 PST

Well, is not the Spanish (Castilians or others) the ones attacking garrisons in San Francisco, but the Californians attacking a small royalist garrison that the Castilians had there. Why? They want to get rid of any royalist authorities, which already are scarce as the Great Viceroyalty does not bother on what is happening in California. --Carlos Th

OK....but that's beside what I was trying to say. - Doobieous 28 Februar, 2005 02:33 PST