Talk:Union of Arras

Reference to wrong treaty

Under the heading "Text" a link to the wrong treaty is given. The link refers to the peace treaty of 17 May 1579 that was concluded between Parma and several members of the Union of Arras, that had been formed on 6 January 1579. I have substituted a link to the French text of the treaty of 6 January that established the Union of Arras.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Article needs extensive rewriting

After I had made the relatively minor correction of the link to the Act of 6 January 1579 that established the Union of Arras I discovered when reading that Act and the subsequent peace treaty of 17 May 1795 that the current text of the article confounds a number of important things. A number of the elements of the Union mentioned in the article were in fact only established in the peace treaty. The Act of 6 January was only a reaffirmation of the earlier Pacification of Ghent, the Union of Brussels, and the Perpetual Edict that according to the Act had been twisted and deformed by the Protestants in the provinces that did not contract to become part of the Union of Arras (viz. Flanders, Brabant, Holland, Zeeland, and other parts of the northern Habsburg Netherlands). Above all, the Act promised to vigorously defend the Catholic religion against the heresies and other depredations of these Protestants. This latter objective is also an important part of the peace treaty, as is the affirmation of the above mentioned earlier treaties. But the peace treaty addressed a number of practical matters, like a general amnesty; the removal of foreign mercenary troops in the employ of both the Spanish Crown and the States of the provinces that were part of the Union, to be replaced with locally raised troops; the new composition of the Council of State; and the abolition of taxes that had been imposed after the end of the reign of emperor Charles V. These matters therefore indeed became aspects of the Union of Arras, but only after the conclusion and implementation of the peace treaty of 17 May, not the Act of 6 January . What neither act or treaty did, was renew the fealty to Don Juan of Austria as the article now states, because that gentleman was by this time already deceased. I intend to rewrite the article with these points in mind.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Quote

The quote is undoubtedly very interesting, and probably very ´´rousing´´, but shouldn´t it be in English, since it is an English article? Very inaccesible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.158.46.83 (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)