Talk:First Anglo-Dutch War

Anglo-Swedish and Dutch-Danish alliances?

...Cromwell... made a proposal of 27 articles, two of which were utterly unacceptable to the Dutch: ...that Denmark, the ally of the Republic, should be abandoned in its war against Sweden

Why were the Dutch helping Denmark? Why did Cromwell take a pro-Swedish position? Was Cromwell motivated by the role of Sweden in the Thirty Years war?

Top.Squark (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

dates

At the moment this article states:

(Dates in this article are given in the Gregorian calendar, then ten days ahead of the Julian calendar in use in England.)

This is unusual for an article about English history at this time see ([[Old Style and New Style dates), and it means that the dates in this article do not match up with those in other article about the same period. For example I came here because I am writing a list of English knights under the Protectorate. As I am doing that I am creating biographies for those men who were knighted for which no biography exists. I am currently creating a biography for an English naval captain who fought in the Civil War and the First Anglo-Dutch War. It means that the dates in this article do not tie in with those in his article which means that to be consistent it would be necessary to dual date that article (and as there are literally 100 of such articles: See for example Richard Deane and his death. As far as I can tell most English language sources use Julian dating, that that article should use them as well. This would place this article in line with MOS:OSNS. -- PBS (talk) 16:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Although the States of Holland and West Friesland were unwilling etc.

who does 'him' refer to in this sentence? Eibocaj (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Change Result

Should we Change it to English Militairy victory and Dutch Political Victory since the treaty was much favourable to the Dutch Republic. Lmk what you guys think Fxzeds (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

At no point does Israel say the war was a 'Dutch victory'. In fact he makes the statement on page 210 'it is understandable that the Anglo-Dutch War was a triumph of sorts for England. But this is questionable.' Its best to read the whole section of the chapter; IMO it's inconclusive at best. As for Steven Pincus on p. 86 he reverses Israel's view by saying 'the Protectorate was able to dicate terms of peace because it was clear the English had won the war.' Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

when u cite 'it is understandable that the Anglo-Dutch War was a triumph of sorts for England. But this is questionable.' he meant at first when u look into it it seems like that he later debunks this by showing this is not correct which he says 1 sentence later. in my eyes it is indeed a draw since the both sides won, but just in different parts of the world since english where beaten meaning the dutch had supremacy there in most of the other parts such as the persian gulf, the baltic, the mediterranean, asia, and the americas, however to say the protectorate was able to gain peace because they had won the war is just pretty misleading i think what he mean was the major battles those indeed where won by england mostly but as israel demostrated this is mostly on in the north sea, but it is also the english merchants who where frustrated and wanted the parliment to make peace. and it also is very clear that it is because, like Israel demostrated ''yet parliament in the end, to obtain peace, was forced to abandon every single one of its economic, maritime, and colonial demands on the dutch. So the treaty was pretty fair, and like a stalement, and the during the war both sides controlled, and beat eachother on different parts everywhere in the world. also the comment i placed was a time ago i also now agree english militairy victory and dutch political victory is misleading. Fxzeds (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a POV, however most historians view the war as an English victory. I have changed the result to reflect this with the sources. There are many more I can add too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not really who finds the most sources, as that is pretty much useless, and these sources completely ignore most factors, and only talk about the north sea. Israel is the one of the only ones who looks at it, and looks everywhere not just the north sea, and an english pov. Israel also points out that it has been tradtionally regarded as a victory for england but later goes on to say this is only due to the victorys in the home waters. But if u look at how the war went as a whole its pretty much impossible to call it an english victory. like i said in my last response Fxzeds (talk) 14:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The reliance on one source can't be a factored in. The only other way would be a consensus. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

bro what? there isn't really one thing i said that was wrong, that source is just a sumarry of different sourced put together there is nothing fake about it and u can easiliy find more source of of the things israel says, to put that aside he also is very reliable Fxzeds (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that we can't rely on one source for an encyclopedia. How convincing Israel's arguments may be. It is a fact that 'English victory' is the most widely held view of historians. However the article already does quite well in explaining why it was a hollow victory. A footnote in the infobox might be a solution, but I don't think it is a good idea to change the result itself. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Israel is not the only one who doesnt regard it as an english victory for example, Edward Kritzler: Although the outcome of what is known as the First Anglo-Dutch War was inconclusive, Karen Racine, and Beatriz G. Mamigonian: First Anglo-Dutch War (1652–1654) erupted. In the aftermath of this inconclusive war, Jonathan Anderson(the historian not any of these Jonathan Anderson): The Dutch Republic and England clashed with the First Anglo-Dutch War (1652–'54). Although this conflict was rather inconclusive, Jeff Kinard: the First Anglo-Dutch War of 1652–1654, was relatively inconclusive, and even Dagomar Degroot: early 1654, that led English negotiators to conclude a peace so lenient that the war's outcome was closer to a stalemate than an English victory(these are not all) The reason mosthistorian regard it as a english victory is because it has been Traditionally regarded as an english victory, but if u look at it in a broader picture, such as Israels explanation its really not, there also is not a lack of historians who regard it as inconclusive, there are plenty. Fxzeds (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

If a few say this war was inconclusive, as an example, the Second Anglo-Dutch War; a number of historians quote that that war as inconclusive as well. Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Its not really a few there are plenty like i said and most of them provide an explanation when i look at the historians who regard the second anglo dutch war as inconclusive they are mostly writers not historians, and do not really provide any arguement, and the number of those so called historians is really really significantly lower then the ones who regard the first anglo dutch war as inconslusive. Fxzeds (talk) 10:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What's the difference between a writer and a historian? Do you mean non historians fiction writers? All the citations I have, are regarded as historians. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

i dont think u even realize what im saying in talking about the people who regard the second anglo dutch war as inconclusive, is very very small, and regarded as such by unreliable people, and even if by 1 or 2 reliable people there is a lack of people who regard it as inconslusive unlike the first one Fxzeds (talk) 08:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

So what you're saying for both wars is.. 'my historians are right and you're historians are wrong'. I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, if this is the case then a consensus will need to be made, and (my fault here) let's just stick with this war. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

No this is not what am saying, for the 100th time there are barely any historians who regard the second as inconslusive, unlike the first one,. and what i said was the people who say the second anglo dutch war was inconclusive, do not provide an arguement, are not really speciallized in dutch, or english history, for example when i look at the people who regard it as such, i couldnt even find an actual historian or someone specialized in dutch and english history who regards it as inconslive for example, Christopher Birch one i could find that regards it as inconslive isnt even a historian, but just a writer, not specialized in history. the numbers, and people who regard the second and first as inconclusive is not even close to comparable Fxzeds (talk) 12:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Certainly Birch wasn't what I had in mind, never heard of him. I would only use reliable historians such as John Baptist Wolf, Geoffrey Treasure, Jeremy Black etc but that is a talk for that article in itself, if it comes up in discussion. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Do these regard the second anglo dutch war as inconclusive? and birch is just an example Fxzeds (talk) 10:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes they do. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

could u cite, and even if they do like i said its not close to compareable Fxzeds (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I won't go as far as citing due to relevancy of this article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

i meant citing as in u telling me where they said that, and what do u mean by relevancy of this article. im still supporting the idea of changing it to inconclusive, because it is Fxzeds (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Good for you chum. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

In what sense do you use the word "chum" here? I refer Fxzeds to Wiktionary for the possible meanings. I case he takes umbrage and needs a second, I in principle would be available. Ereunetes (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It occurred to me that the info box of the article should reflect the contents of the article. So what does the article itself say about the result? I found this

“ As a result, the English made no significant gains out of the peace treaty: not Cromwell's original political aim of a union that would subordinate the Dutch and certainly no commercial ones, as there was massive economic damage to the English maritime economy.[102] The Commonwealth government of Oliver Cromwell wished to avoid further conflict with the Dutch Republic, as it was planning war with Spain, which began as the Anglo-Spanish War of 1654–1660 after the Treaty of Westminster was signed. ”

To me this indicates that the short verdict "English victory" in the info box should at least be qualified. Or there should be much more support in the article for the conclusion in the info box. All the references assembled in the info box tell me nothing as long as they are not further explained in the article itself.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I certainly meant no malice for Fxzeds. As for the conclusion I agree there should be more detail. The Treaty of Westminster article certainly comes to the conclusion matched in this articles infobox. I think that paragraph you quoted should really be in aftermath section, with added detail. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:03, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we are getting closer to agreement. I don't think, though, that the paragraph I quoted should be in the Aftermath subsection as it goes to the question what brought about the end of the War. Which in my view was total exhaustion on both sides. If this is expanded upon it will show that the result of the War was really a draw. (I add in parentheses that the secret article about the exclusion of the Prince of Orange, who was 3 or 4 years of age in 1654, was really something De Witt's States Party wished for, so not a real Dutch concession). In the 17th century wars not often ended in Unconditional Surrender. That makes it often a matter of interpretation by historians to evaluate the result. It is not just a matter of totting up battles won and lost, if only because the French Wikipedians teach us that the result of any battle can be summed up as "victoire tactique Anglais, mais victoire strategique pour la France". So one should take into account non-military aspects like economic effects, especially in the case of naval wars, that were to a large extent waged for economic gains. Ereunetes (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not say that the war was inconclusive, the majority of historians view it as an English victory or that the war was disaster for the Dutch. The treaty of Westminster reflects this argument (hence why I said 'The Treaty of Westminster article certainly comes to the conclusion matched in this articles infobox'). From that the Dutch were the ones to make concessions - three of them in fact. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that you have been busy editing other (related) wikipedia articles also to prove your point. And other editors also did their best to rewrite Dutch history to make it more to their liking. This leads to amusing results. I read the following quote on Act of Seclusion with much interest: "Johan de Witt, Grand Pensionary of Holland, was also forced by Oliver Cromwell to ensure that the Orangist regent faction would be much weakened. This was so that English Republicans no longer needed to fear that William III (four years of age at the time) could become a strong Dutch leader who could bring the Stuarts to whom he was closely related through his mother Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, back on the English throne." That Johan de Witt had to be forced by Cromwell to ensure that the Orangist faction would be much weakened would have been news to De Witt himself. Especially because it would require superhuman foresight to devine that the four-year old toddler "could become a strong Dutch leader who could bring the Stuarts back to the English throne". Wouldn't it have been simpler for Cromwell to make sure that the Dutch Republic would never more be able to meddle in English affairs, as he had (according to your take on events) the Dutch Republic on its knees? Why this roundabout scheme? Why not (for instance) impose a requirement that the Dutch would observe a constraint on the size of their fleet, like the limit accepted after the Glorious Revolution? That would probably have prevented the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars (and certainly the Glorious Revolution itself), and all the humiliations for the English those conflicts entailed. Or did Cromwell foresee the English Restoration, and did he have the foresight to leave this ticking timebomb (enraged Orangists) in his legacy to the Stuart monarchs who managed to be restored without too much Dutch aid? Ereunetes (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

The war was an English victory according to most historians, but a footnote that a significant amount sees the war as inconclusive shouldn't be a problem. And that perspective should be mentioned in the aftermath.

The consessions were not very major consessions either.

• The island of Run was never returned to the English
• Saluting the English in the Channel was symbolic
• The Act of Seclusion was in the interest of Johan de Witt and his party

These nuances should be included. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Understood, have seen the corrections and noted changes for Treaty of Seclusion article. As for this article I'm happy to add that a number of historians have said that war was inconclusive in the aftermath section in addition to the footnote, so that readers can see why; hopefully that will sort this issue out. As for the three concessions I will use the same description as in Treaty of Westminster article 'three minor humiliating concessions.' I will start this shortly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

What also could be a solution is to change the result to Treaty of Westminster just like in the eighty years war wiki page, also are sweden and denmark bellingrets in this war? im pretty sure sweden helped england, and denmark the dutch republic Fxzeds (talk) 13:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think they were belligerents. Denmark was allied with the Dutch but didn't declare war on England or fought against them. Sweden didn't participate in the war either DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I was saving more sources for just such an occassion. Also at this point there is scraping the bottom of the barrel so that I’d advise against using sources that have no relevance to the subject matter – namely ‘’Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean’’ & ‘’Gannentaha The 17th Century French Jesuit Mission Ste. Marie Among the Iroquois Haudenosaunee at Onondaga Lake’’ In addition I'm surprised the use of Diehl’s ‘The Dynamics of Enduring Rivalries’ which is a perfect description of this article’s aftermath and what have already stated on this page – Although the military outcome of the war favoured England, Cromwell’s terms of peace were lenient. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately too many Wikipedia articles elicit childish "who won" debates

Eastfarthingan took it upon himself to censor my previous edits. And so did DavidDijkgraaf. This is not how Wikipedians comport themselves. So I am restoring my edits. I have a right to express my opinion asmuch as you do. You may of course react, but in a civilized manner, please.

Unfortunately, too many Wikipedia articles on Wars and Battles in a distant past engender this kind of discussion. Who cares "who won" after all these centuries? Especially with all the intervening results. Take the Glorious Revolution, less than a half century after this First Anglo-Dutch War. (I leave aside for the moment that this unprovoked act of Dutch aggression resulted in the Total Defeat of England, a result that is so unpatable to most Britishers like Eastfarthingan that they have to pretend that "William was invited" and that they "did it all themselves," to save their self-esteem, apparently) One might say that Cromwell's stated objective in the First War, namely a kind of "union" between England and the Dutch Republic, was finally achieved, be it with the Dutch lying on top, instead of England, as he had envisaged. But the advantages for the Dutch were short-lived. In the first place they made the mistake of engaging in a kind of "Washington Treaty" on fleet limitations avant la lettre, which left them in a permanent position of fleet inferiority (although this may have been "smart" at the time as it forced the reluctant English to build more ships than they would otherwise have done, so the frugal Dutch could save a bit of money that they could then spend on financing a mercenary army to withstand the French onslaught in the Nine Years' War). But they also taught the English a few tricks (like founding the Bank of England on the model of the Amsterdam Wisselbank, and creating an amortisation fund for dealing with the Public Debt, which finally rationalised the English public finances) that in future put the English on equal terms, and in a favorable position, in view of the English demographics. They also naievely thought that the good relations would persist, which trust soon proved unfounded with the stab in the back they received in 1712 at Denain and the way Great Britain gained most of the fruits of the Peace of Utrecht. So who won eventually? Both in 1654 and 1689? Ereunetes (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Ereunetes While not really relevant I want to say that 1689 was what saved the Dutch Republic from becoming powerless against France. The decline of the Dutch Republic was only a matter of time, and the alliance with Britain brought it in a relatively comfortable position for most of the 18th century. I might go as far to say that the invasion of England in 1688 was the most important victory in the Dutch Republic's history. Even if it brought with it a few negative consequences. There was not alternative as far as I can see. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You don't recognize "tongue-in-cheek" when it bit you in the behind, don't you? Of course, the Glorious Revolution was good for the Dutch and even better for the benighted English (who else would have saved the EIC from itself), who were dragged kicking and screaming into the 17th century. What I meant was: "be careful what you wish for". Take the Asiento de Negros which was one of the plums the British got away from the Peace of Utrecht. And in the following century it helped them to become the greatest slave trading nation by far. What an accomplishment! But look at what happened recently in the Netherlands. The Dutch had their lunch eaten by the British in the slave trade, but still they now experience a Frenzy of National Remorse over their forebears' misbehavior in this respect. The British are not yet that far. But I think History will catch up with them too. And as their collective guilt is so much greater, thanks to them getting that Asiento, they may wish they had not run away at Denain, and hand Louis his escape. They might not have gotten the Asiento, but their consciences would have been so much clearer. (And I am not even thinking of the Reparations Bill, which must be astronomical in the British case). One has to think these things through over the long term, I always say. Ereunetes (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes I also censored myself. without the initial comment our discussion was quite out of place.

As to the discussions about victory or defeat. Even tho they might look childish they are important. Many people only take time to look at the infobox and will in that way form their opinion about history. The wikipedia infobox has become one of the more influential historical sources out there. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

You should have put your initial comment under my initial comment. But that is water under the bridge. As you now reply in the proper way, I'll do you the courtesy to reply likewise. I think info boxes should confine themselves to the facts. The "who won" comments in them are really inappropriate as they usually are highly subjective, and clearly contravene the POV-taboo. As they are unfortunately very much part of the Wikipedia folklore, they provoke needless edit wars, like with this article, and also for instance the Battle of Malplaquet article, though the controversy there also concerns the related "how many losses" topic. I tried to expose the fruitlessness of these controversies with my jocular remarks. But I am completely serious. The problem even occurs across Wikis. If one compares comparable articles in the French and the English Wikis this becomes immediately obvious. Ereunetes (talk) 20:32, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes Not possible as you hadn't signed your comment. It was later also deleted which made our comments out of place.

Anyway. As long as victory, defeat and casualties are placed within the infobox it is good to discuss it. If that should be included at all is a different discussion. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is this discussion, that is separate from the discussion above. If you prefer to seriously engage in a discussion about "who won" the First Anglo-Dutch War, that is your privilege, of course. Just as it is my privilege to contend that it will never lead to consensus. I, for one, could argue both sides. Ereunetes (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes I could also argue for a certain pov, but my personal opinion isn't that relevant. I rather hope to represent the historiography in a fair way. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

What does the 1688 Glorious Revolution got to do with this? Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Read what I wrote above. Ereunetes (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I did, but this talk page is about the First Anglo-Dutch war of which no mention in this section of it has been made. What you put above really should be in the talk page for the Glorious Revolution. Also 'Britishers like Eastfarthingan that they have to pretend that "William was invited" and that they "did it all themselves," to save their self-esteem, apparently)', excuse where is the evidence for this? This is libel.Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Let me quote John Cleese in A fish called Wanda here:

“ I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future. ”

I do hope this is satisfactory? Ereunetes (talk) 19:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This is an excellent quote, and this has more than made up for it. Good job. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It is all John Cleese's doing (and the scriptwriters for the movie, of course; but you should see how he declaims this most abject of apologies, being held upside down outside a window by the person who took umbrage). So I have to humbly decline your praise. Ereunetes (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Nonetheless, an excellent example and its made me want to watch it again. Eastfarthingan (talk) 06:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Highly recommended. Kevin Kline is also very funny. Ereunetes (talk) 20:58, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Sweden Denmark

During the first Anglo - Dutch War Sweden gave England help but Denmark blocked English shipping through the Danish Sound I find this in multiple sources, are they involved? Fxzeds (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Maybe if anything they could be put in supporting roles, as long as they're backed up in main article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I already included the role Denmark had in the text. I don't think they were a belligerent though. Sweden was just sitting on the fence the whole war DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

As in Supported by in infobox? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I thought that was against the Wikipedia guidelines? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

To be sure, however looking at it more closely I see no reason for putting either country there given that there wasn't any military support. Anything political, logistical is a definite no no. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree its only supported there are also sources btw of poland joining the dano-dutch alliance against the cromwell regime, and working together to block the english trade during this war in the baltic but beside this i also wanna say that a good neutral solution to this result problem would be that that the result would be just the treaty of westminster, just like in the franco dutch war wiki where its just treaties of nijmegen, and eighty year war wiki where its peace of munster, and put the arguements of being an english victory and inconclusive, from a neutral perspective in the page of the treaty, or in aftermath. i think it would solve the problem in a good neutral way@Eastfarthingan@Ereunetes Fxzeds (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know where to leave this reaction. I see that all of you are getting closer to a solution above which I happily support. But if I may offer a cautioning remark: using the contents of the 1654 Treaty of Westminster is OK of course, as is qualifying this with how these agreements were honored in the breach by the Dutch (I would like to add in this respect that another provision of the treaty was that the Judges in the Amboyna Massacre case would be prosecuted by the Dutch, but that it turned out that none were still alive in 1654 :-). But I think that the provisions of the treaty should be contrasted with the original war aims of both parties (which are extensively treated in the literature). Cromwell's proposed "union" between the two countries, for instance, did not come about. The fact that the Dutch "accepted" the Navigation Acts is not a big deal, because a. the two economies were not complementary (like the Spanish and Dutch economies, which explains the explosion in Hispano-Dutch trade after 1648, when the Spanish embargo was lifted), and b. the Navigation Acts primarily hurt the English consumers as they could not profit from lower Dutch prices in the European carrying trade (and I don't have to mention the burden the Navigation Acts were for the English colonists, because their incomes were depressed as they could no longer sell their products on the open market). I think all these nuances should be discussed together with the provisions in the Treaty. And I leave it to others to decide whether this should be at the end of the central section, or in the Aftermath section. Ereunetes (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

If anything it would be in the aftermath section, I'd say a paragraph to include a summary of what is said in the treaty article, not word for word. Eastfarthingan (talk) 08:44, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Then would u agree to the solution of putting as result treaty of westminster, like in the Franco-Dutch War article, and explain the outcome from both sides in a neutral perspective in the aftermath Fxzeds (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case then we should do that for all three Anglo Dutch Wars. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

No, as they are not as close to inconclusive as this one Fxzeds (talk) 16:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Then I won't.Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Why? Ur reasons are very bad. The first is not even close to compareable as the second, it was an obvious dutch victory, just like the third, and the fourth was an obvious British victory, but as for the first its very, very different with many mixed opinions, and not close even close to an obvious result.` Fxzeds (talk) 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You have missed the point - most historians have viewed it as an English victory due to the concessions and the leniency of Cromwell. The article has been sorted/ironed out with no issues from other readers/editors - I have compromised by adding that a number of historians have said that it was inconclusive in the aftermath. How is that bad? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Pretty sure we have already went over this, it has been traditionally regarded as an english victory i dont deny that, its only true whe it comes to the home waters like i already said, also i didnt see the part u added in aftermath, and u said that as a result of cromwells leniency they see as inconclusive but this is just very bias, and untrue if u actually read israels explanation wich u cited it doesnt even come close to england dindt win bc cromwell was lenient to the dutch, it provides an actual explanation for englands failure and how its impossible for it to be an english victory, the only way to resolve this result issue, is to change the result to treaty of westminster it is the most neutral, and the article is very well written and is not bias to either sides it puts everything. Back to those concessions, these really dont come close to representing a victory, but actually represent a failure of the english, how they had to draw the concessions of the dutch to such a low that its closer to a stalemate then an english victory, like Dagomar Degroot exactly said, the perpetrators of the amboyna massacre where no longer alive, the island of run was never returned, the saluting the english flag is only symbolic, and this did not imply an admission of sovereignty of England over those "English Seas",the compensation of 85,000 had been drawn to such a low compared to the losses the english trade, everywhere during the war, in the persian gulf, mediterranean, asia, east indies, americas, and the entire baltic, and the exclusion was something de Witt's party wanted, its a measure of english failure and the dutch also did not get anything out of it thus a stalement and treaty of westminster, or inconclusive is the only neutral result appropriate. Fxzeds (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Like I said before, it is a bad idea to "refight" Wars on talk-pages like this (but this also goes for individual battles, as Battle of Malplaquet and Battle of Waterloo; see their talk-pages). One cannot "win" these kinds of battles, even by marshalling all those 19th-century Jingoist British historians, who of course score this particular war as a Devastating English Victory. But there is some bias there. First of all none of them was able to read Dutch, so they missed the information from the Dutch archives. This was somewhat mitigated by American historians who took the trouble to have some stuff translated for areas that interested them (see for instance the sources section of the Anthony Colve article, where I unearthed an interesting collection of these papers, pertaining to the history of old New York). As to the Anglo-Dutch Wars, I found an interesting article by Boxer as a source on the Third Anglo-Dutch War: Boxer, C. R. (1969). "Some Second Thoughts on the Third Anglo-Dutch War, 1672–1674". Trans. R. Hist. Soc. 19: 67–94. doi:10.2307/3678740. JSTOR 3678740. S2CID 159934682. in which he confesses he doesn't read Dutch himself, but that he used such a collection of translated sources assembled by another historian. One would wish he had done this more often, because his article is remarkably evenhanded for an Anglophone historian. (It is behind a paywall, but as a veteran Wikipedian one can access it via the wikipedia library as I did. But these are exceptions. Mostly British historians describe battles in which the British and Dutch acted as Allies as follows: "The Battle starts. The Dutch run away. The outmanned British Thin Red Line prevails eventually against overwhelming odds, thanks to the way they maintained the Stiffness of their Upper Lips". Of course, if one reads the accounts of 19th century Dutch historians the battles in question in reality unfolded as follows: "The Battle starts. The British have not yet arrived. The Dutch fight overwhelming odds and manage to keep the enemy at bay. Eventually the British belatedly arrive and sweep the remnants of the enemy from the field. They say afterwards that the Dutch had run away before they arrived." Anyway the bias of British historians was not confined to Dutch allies. When I wrote Anglo-Russian invasion of Holland I also read some British accounts. And there it was the Russians who ran away while the British practiced their Stiff Upper Lips. The lesson I drew from this experience is that it does not pay for Other Nations to be allied with the British. Not if one wants one's contribution to be acknowledged. And notice that I write this about how British historians treat their Allies. If it concerns their foes the treatment is far worse. Unfortuanately, after the intervening centuries only British and Dutch historians are generally interested in the four Anglo-Dutch Wars (plus the Glorious Revolution, which is not often seen for the short war it was). So there is not a body of "neutral" historians we could use to break the tie (or it must be French historians, but those have their own axes to grind).--Ereunetes (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So what do you propose for the infobox? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

So even if Dutch historians such as Maarten Prak, Olaf Van Nimwegen and Marjolein 't Hart consider that the war was 'disastrous for the Dutch' this falls into the "Jingoist British historians"? Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You abuse the uncharacteristic generosity of modern Dutch historians. To them even a whiff of the old chauvinism that used to characterise Dutch historiography too, is anathema. So they tend to lean over backwards to deprecate anything Dutch (don't get me going about the current discussions of the VOC; even the king is now accused of having made his money in the slave trade). But to reply seriously to your remark: I never said that the 1652-1654 war was not "disastrous for the Dutch". I just said that it was disastrous for the English also. The misery was spread rather evenly. If Cromwell hadn't been such a dictator, Parliament might even have taken him to account for his disastrous management of the English side of the War. But they had to wait until he was dead. So I have no problem with admitting that the Dutch had a tough time of it. Compare the situation with that around the Peace of Utrecht sixty years later. Both France and the Dutch Republic were exhausted. The French were saved by the British from their just deserts. If the Tories hadn't been so shortsighted and had helped finish France off, they might have avoided a lot of unpleasantness in the remainder of the 18th century, when France had had time to recover. Likewise, after 1654 the Dutch had the opportunity to construct a proper navy and the next two Anglo-Dutch wars were less evenly matched and are far less difficult to score in their infoboxes as a consequence. (Although British historians may view them as Total English Victories; the problem applies to all 17th century Anglo-Dutch Wars). Incidentally, I think the recent edits to the article text improve it tremendously. The info box just has to reflect those textual improvements.Ereunetes (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The point is I was taking into account universal views not just from from British historians but also American and Dutch. And forvie me for being ignorant of Dutch historiography. Maybe if needed I can find some from French and German ones too. The information I added in the aftermath at least is getting praised for its balance; the welcome addition of changes reflects that. The result will not change, but as we have already discussed above, we've agreed that a short footnote will be included in the infobox to reflcet those textual additions. This will be done today. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I already publicly thanked you for your work yesterday, because I was pressed for time. But I'd like to compliment you more extensively for the elegant way in which you managed to have the last word (although I suspect a sarcastic undertone in those two footnotes in the info box. But realize that sarcasm can be a two-edged sword:-). In any case I think this discussion has had a positive effect on the quality of the article, making it more nuanced in a lot of respects, and enriching all of us by unearthing a large number of opinions of historians who otherwise might have suffered well-deserved oblivion. Ereunetes (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree; there is still some issues with the article the background section is way too long & needs to be rejigged/condensed. Also I don't mean to be sarcastic, just trying to put what the historian said to back up the result. I feel I may have to remove them; which leads to the problem of WP:OVERKILL in the infobox which needs to be addressed. I think it might be best if we remove most of them? Also Im looking for more information on the damage to England's economy to give a balanced perspective. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

It is estimated that the Dutch lost between 1,000 and 1,700 vessels of all sizes to privateers in this war, up to four times as many as the English lost,

Don't you think that this sentence can be a bit misleading? The Dutch merchant fleet was after all significantly bigger than the English merchant fleet. I think this also needs a bit more context. I don't know if the Dutch lost more percentage wise. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

I think we can add that in the sentence ie 'the much larger Dutch merchant fleet'. I cant see any percentage figures. Davies; the source that is cited from, does go on to say that England then modelled its merchant fleet on the Dutch, particularly with Flyboats. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:42, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

it should be mentioned also that these where mostly low valued flutys, and the most reliable estimate is by amsterdam burgo masters, wich mentions 1,200 ships lost, and the english did not loose a fourth, of the dutch but a third they lost 400+, without counting english vessels sold in danish norwegian ports see Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585-1740 207-213, GlobalReference221 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

@GlobalReference221I think this is all very exhausting. There finally seemed to be some kind of peace and hard-won consensus, and now you upset the tables again with your most recent edit. And for what? Such a minuscule point. Are you going to nuke Rotterdam about it? Do you get a hard on about how many Dutch ships were taken more than 350 years ago? Did you count all the herring busses, because the English captured a lot of those also. Ereunetes (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

I took it from Dutch Primacy in World Trade, 1585-1740 207-213. and i do it because truth matters GlobalReference221 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

The source says and I quote: 'Contemporary sources put the total number of Dutch ships seized between 1,000 and 1,700. The most reliable estimate is probably that of the Amsterdam Burgomasters who reckon the total loss was 1,200 captured or burned.' That means we can still quote that number that Davies stated which has now been strangely removed. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Isn't it self explanatory that the most reliable source is used GlobalReference221 (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

All sources here are reliable and relevant to the article - unlike 'French jesuits in North America' and 'Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean'? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

I said most reliable, which is said, however i resolved it in a neutral way. If u want me to change a source u could have just asked, also what has happened to the Anglo Dutch war pages i thought we came to a pretty good solution, why is the result all treaties? GlobalReference221 (talk) 20:55, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

It was the fact that a source had been deleted and wiped over, that was the issue. As for the results of the ADW articles it was resolved by DavidDijkgraaf (talk) & Robinvp11 (talk) – so best you should ask them? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Emotionally charged editing leads to damage to the text

I just caught damage done to the text four years ago (in 2019) by an irate anonymous editor who wildly inserted his two cents worth without taking account of the damage he did to the surrounding text. He/she even gave an incomplete reference, which prompted a Wikipedia patroller to add a demand for a page reference, without noticing that the surrounding text was incoherent (which looks like a dereliction of duty to me :-). I first noticed the break accidentally, while copy-editing, and then spent two hours tracing back in the revision history to find the original vandalism. Though the surrounding text was repeatedly edited by reputable editors, nobody apparently noticed that the sentence was awkward. Also nobody reacted to the demand for a citation. I have just now restored the deleted original passage (now with a reference, which also took some time to find, as the original text was not mine). My point: some people get so enraged by this article and what other people dare put in it, that they commit (no doubt with the best intentions) what amounts to vandalism. I wonder if it is not time to ask for semi-protected status for the article? Ereunetes (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2023 (UTC)