Question for Arthur

RE: Question for Arthur

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 09-01-03 AT 10:10 AM (GMT)]no you sailed up the emdway (where i live) to the naval base (closed back in the 80’s) and you lot stole our flagship

this was the time when the great diarist smaual peyps was about and naval funding was really low and all the ship were laied up

rabie :9

RE: Question for Arthur

Mixtec,

You are right when you say that the Dutch were a naval power during the 1600s, but in that era a militarily strong naval was a tool of merchantism, not of deliberate warmongering amongst one’s neighbours. The combat fleet was there to protect the merchant fleet, or (especially in the West Indies, where the ‘merchants’ did little more than raiding Spanish ships) the combat fleet actually was the merchant fleet. Also, the combat fleet was largely paid for by the VOC, the corporation which controlled the trade with the East Indies. So while the Dutch certainly posessed a rather impressive navy during the 1600s, it was in fact a tool of trade more than it was a tool of war.

Also, the figure of about thousand combat ships is only right if you take the so-called ‘burners’ into consideration. These were small vessels loaded with explosives and burning stuff, and equipped with pikes and stuff like that. They were crewed by three or four, with again a small rescue ship for the crew. These burners were very maneuvrable, and after being sent on a collision course with an enemy ship the burner was set alight and the crew escaped. They were extremely effective if the crew was any good.

As for the Dutch sailing on to the Thames: yes, we did. The Brits thought they could close the mound of the river by spanning a massive chain across it. Unfortunately the chain was weaker than the first Dutch ship… after that the Dutch had an almost free game setting the English fleet alight (yes, we were a bunch of naval pyromaniacs back then).

RE: Question for Arthur

Napoleonic era ofcourse. 😀

RE: Question for Arthur

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 08-01-03 AT 05:18 AM (GMT)]You are right Brad, that happened in 1667, the second Anglo-Dutch war, under the command of Michiel de Ruyter. Anyway, the Dutch lost that war and had to give up New Holland (Oz) and New Zealand in favour of the British. The Anglo-Dutch wars have only weakened both countries, the Dutch had to give up their position as leading nation in Europe, and the British had to wait another 100 years before they could catch up with the French (both in terms of military, economy and colonialism, England became an empire after the Seven-year war). At that time, France was undoubtly the leading nation of Europe, ruled by Louis XIV (first Mazarin), who was seen as an enemy for most other European nations. After Louis XIV, France was in a big crisis, which eventually ended in the French revolution in 1789 and the Napoleonic area. In january of 1790, Belgium declared itself independent, and became a republic under the name of the `Republic of the United Dutch States`, much like the Republic of the United Provinces (Netherlands). In november of the same year, the Austrians regained controll over Belgium. From 1794-1815 we were part of France (much like the rest of western Europe), and in 1815, after the Vienna-treaty, the Netherlands and Belgium were united in one state, known as the United Netherlands. In 1830, this ended in another civil war between the North and the South.

At least at that time Brittons still felt like Europeans (eventhough if that meant making war :D).

RE: Question for Arthur

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-01-03 AT 11:21 PM (GMT)]Authur-To say the dutch were not warlike but just a merchant society is to ignore the enormous naval power that the dutch had in the 1600s and there sea battles with the British in the channel. Didnt the Dutch have something like a thousand ships or so? I recall one funny episode where the Dutch sailed there ships up the Thames river, WAY up the Thames river and achieved victory over the disoriented British navy.

RE: Question for Arthur

😀 😀 😀

cureently doing the history of rfranc efrom 1550 odd trough to the sun king (alothough we have only got to 1610 at the moment)

reading all about the spanish netherlands and spain atempts to get troops there and how that pissed of franc eand got france to get involved in german, benelux and italien politics

rabie :9

RE: Question for Arthur

And of 3 conflicts between the Dutch and the English
ofcourse. Was there still a war fought between the Republic
and Great-Brittain after the Seven-year war. On which side
were the Dutch in this war (English/Prussian or
French/Austrian/Russian).

In the 1700s the Dutch became politically completely insignificant. A class of wealthy traders (the so-called Regents) were mostly busy with consolidating power and wealth, but couldn’t care less for the republic itself. Although there were some actions in the Netherlands (both the Republic and the southern parts) during the Austrian Succession War (Fontenoy 1745 is a shining example), the Dutch themselves of course didn’t fight. Although the French won that battle, eventually they had to give up Belgium again during the peace talks (the Austrians preferred to have Silezia back as it was more close to home and suited their interests better, but of course the English and the Dutch still wanted to keep France in check, even though they had proven that the only way the Brits could effectively fight France was in the Colonies, and the Dutch couldn’t fight France at all).

During the Seven Year’s War, the Dutch didn’t do anything except brewing beer, making soap, cutting diamonds and colonising the East Indies, Surinam and Ceylon.

The Dutch did resume fighting with the English again only during the Napoleonic age, when (in the beginning) the Dutch were actually quite pleased with the French occupation since they did put an end to the despotic behaviour of the Regents. However, these Napoleonic wars with Britain mostly consisted of some fighting in the East Indies and a rather half-assed landing on Dutch beaches by British and Russian troops in order to fight Napoleon. Of course, only a few years later the Dutch Crown Prince was a high-ranking officer in Wellington’s army at Waterloo. The Netherlands ceased being a republic in 1815 (as you will know, by then Belgium was absorbed into the Netherlands to keep France down), in order to get rid of the incompetent Regents and in the spirit of the Restoration (we didn’t have a monarchy to restore but we got one anyways).

Where else would the Britons, the Belgians and the French
get all those porn and pot? }>

Well, Maastricht and Heerlen are quite populair for pot (thanks to their strategic locations near the Belgian and German borders), we’ve got Rotterdam for hard drugs for the French, but our porn capital will always be Amsterdam. Hey, you can’t blame the American tourists for not wanting to stay in the Van Gogh museum all day long, can you?

BTW, Amsterdam’s Red Light district is a typical result of the Regent’s era. As any port city, Amsterdam had prostitution yet it was the profit-against-all-odds attitude of the Regents which organised it on such a large scale. So next time you’re walking across the Wallen (that’s the name of the Red Light District), remember you’re on a historical trip. And go and get a beer at Het Loosje, it’s a really nice bar.

RE: Question for Arthur

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 07-01-03 AT 08:07 AM (GMT)]Indeed it is very interesting stuff. Thanks again Arthur, I owe you one :-). Are you actually a historian or is it more of a personal interest?

Maybe I`ll have to post some more questions in the future. I think it`s interesting for everyone to read.

`which itself ment the end of a long time of religious struggle in England, `

And of 3 conflicts between the Dutch and the English ofcourse. Was there still a war fought between the Republic and Great-Brittain after the Seven-year war. On which side were the Dutch in this war (English/Prussian or French/Austrian/Russian).

`in case you were wondering why that silly tract of land north of Gent is still Dutch).`

Where else would the Britons, the Belgians and the French get all those porn and pot? }>

RE: Question for Arthur

Interesting stuff. Thanks.

RE: Question for Arthur

When in 1688, Willem III van Oranje, leader of the Republic,
became King of England (after the Glorius Revolution of
1688, where Jacob II was banned to France after being
accused of supporting Louis XIV in his fight against
protestantism), did this mean England (including Scotland)
and the Republic were united or did they only share their
leader?

Two countries under the same ruler. England and the Republic didn’t merge or anything, although of course the Brits came in handy with the Dutch struggles with France 🙂 Actually, bringing England into the balance of power on the European continent was for a large part only possible thanks to Willem/William sitting on the British throne, which itself ment the end of a long time of religious struggle in England, Scotland and Ireland (they went on meddling amongst each other for some 40 years more after we continental Europeans decided that was no good).

After the Spanish succesionwar (1701-1713), the Republic and
the Emperor made an agreement so that troops would be
stationed near the French border. The Southern Netherlands
(today`s Belgium became property of Austria after the
Spanish war). Were these troops Dutch or Austrian, or a
mixture of both.

Mostly Austrians, although paid for partly by the Republic (the Netherlands have never been a nation of soldiers as you will know). The Austrians liked having those territories (which did include some parts of current Dutch Limburg and Brabant, but did not include some parts of the Belgium provinces of Luik and a few other areas… you can go historical on each and every square meter if you’d like), and the Dutch didn’t mind having the Austrians there since they would help keeping France away.

Small contingents of Dutch troops were present to close off the Scheldt, since the Dutch couldn’t allow Antwerp to become a serious port again. However, these mostly manned gun batteries in Zeeland and Zeeuws-Vlaanderen (in case you were wondering why that silly tract of land north of Gent is still Dutch).

Thanks in advance.
You’re welcome. Even though you made me get out my Palmer & Colton-bible.

RE: Question for Arthur

No, but he did study history. Or at least he knows at lot about it.

RE: Question for Arthur

Geforce.

Arthur’s not old enough to remember that is he?

BTW, perhaps you shpuld change your signature to ‘Diversity through University.’

Regards,

kev35