ArthurRE: Maurice Gibb dies
Perhaps we should ask the webmaster if he can create a morgue-forum where everyone can show his deepest feelings regarding the dead? I’m sorry guys, but i find this emotional blah-blah conserning some dead musician you didn’t even know personally rather silly. Unless someone expects the remaining Gibb-brothers to actually visit this board and get all sensitive about all the care and loff and sence of loss displayed in honour of Maurice of course…
Anyway, i didn’t like the BeeGees anyway.
Hah – hah – hah – hah
staying alive
staying alive
Hah – hah – hah – hah
Staying aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive….
ArthurRE: Maurice Gibb dies
Perhaps we should ask the webmaster if he can create a morgue-forum where everyone can show his deepest feelings regarding the dead? I’m sorry guys, but i find this emotional blah-blah conserning some dead musician you didn’t even know personally rather silly. Unless someone expects the remaining Gibb-brothers to actually visit this board and get all sensitive about all the care and loff and sence of loss displayed in honour of Maurice of course…
Anyway, i didn’t like the BeeGees anyway.
Hah – hah – hah – hah
staying alive
staying alive
Hah – hah – hah – hah
Staying aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive….
ArthurRE: Languages
…yet a lot of language groups have similar ancestral languages. The Latin, Hellenic, Slavic, Germanic, Persian and some Indian (Sanskrit) languages can all be traced back to the Indo-European. A similar common ancestry exists for languages in the Turkic, Finn-Ugric (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian), and Mongolian languages. A small language branch is the Semitical one which only has Arab, Hebrew and Maltese.
Unfortunately i don’t know too much about language families beyond those, but i am absolutely sure there are more diverse language groups which are linked together.
ArthurRE: Languages
…yet a lot of language groups have similar ancestral languages. The Latin, Hellenic, Slavic, Germanic, Persian and some Indian (Sanskrit) languages can all be traced back to the Indo-European. A similar common ancestry exists for languages in the Turkic, Finn-Ugric (Finnish, Estonian, Hungarian), and Mongolian languages. A small language branch is the Semitical one which only has Arab, Hebrew and Maltese.
Unfortunately i don’t know too much about language families beyond those, but i am absolutely sure there are more diverse language groups which are linked together.
ArthurRE: What Music Are You Listening To Now?
Ashley,
The one you’re talking about it ‘Everybody’s free (to feel good)’ by Rosalla. A remix was released about a year ago, which was filmed in some aircraft museum with a rather over-the-top shining MiG-15 in the background.
ArthurRE: What Music Are You Listening To Now?
Ashley,
The one you’re talking about it ‘Everybody’s free (to feel good)’ by Rosalla. A remix was released about a year ago, which was filmed in some aircraft museum with a rather over-the-top shining MiG-15 in the background.
ArthurRE: 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).
ArthurRE: 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).
ArthurRE: Laws you would like to see introduced?
Things which should be illegal…
– Anything truelly annoying, like people, commercials and music.
– Driving too slow.
ArthurRE: Laws you would like to see introduced?
Things which should be illegal…
– Anything truelly annoying, like people, commercials and music.
– Driving too slow.
ArthurRE: 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.
ArthurRE: 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.
ArthurRE: 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.
ArthurRE: 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.
ArthurRE: Favorite Dinosaur?
I have to agree with Kabir. The Triceratops is nice, a good combination of stings and a silly sluggish look.
Sign In
