The Dutch Republic - Faction Thread

[Dr. Croccer]

The real reason why the Dutch were so succesful was because they apparantly have more brains than the others.

Building tradingposts, intimidation, diplomacy, national debt and monopoly declarations seem incredibly obvious things to do in colonisation.

[Selim Yavuz]

The real reason why the Dutch were so succesful was because they apparantly have more brains than the others.

Building tradingposts, intimidation, diplomacy, national debt and monopoly declarations seem incredibly obvious things to do in colonisation.

I can't really say that the Dutch were more successful colonisers than the Spaniards, and blatantly saying the Spanish were stupid and the Dutch smart is to simple an explanation. No the Spanish leadership was quite intelligent, but the Dutch were born sailors, the Spaniards, not so much. Spain faced the same problem that France was to face over and over again, a government that knew what needed to be done, but because of financial weakness and the fact that the majority of the English and Dutch gained a living from the sea, and were therefore better than farmers and peasants forced onto ships, at sailing and fighting at sea. So even though Spain (and France) built large and powerful fleets these were hollow, against true sailors, and if it came down to it the leadership of those countries would sacrifice the navy for the army every time, the Dutch and English did the exact opposite. Really it was a series of extraordinarily favorable circumstances that allowed the Dutch to triumph over Spain. And the idea of a national bank was a novel one, and the Dutch concieved of it, which was another huge advantage.

[Dr. Croccer]

I can't really say that the Dutch were more successful colonisers than the Spaniards, and blatantly saying the Spanish were stupid and the Dutch smart is to simple an explanation. No the Spanish leadership was quite intelligent, but the Dutch were born sailors, the Spaniards, not so much

The Spanish government was horrible. It was incredibly centralised and it spawned a large quantity of mad kings and queens.

. Spain faced the same problem that France was to face over and over again, a government that knew what needed to be done, but because of financial weakness and the fact that the majority of the English and Dutch gained a living from the sea, and were therefore better than farmers and peasants forced onto ships, at sailing and fighting at sea. So even though Spain (and France) built large and powerful fleets these were hollow, against true sailors, and if it came down to it the leadership of those countries would sacrifice the navy for the army every time, the Dutch and English did the exact opposite.

True, true. Apart from the ''powerful and large fleets of Spain and France part''. They certainly weren't powerful or large (The Dutch fleet in the 17th century was twice as big as the English one and five times as big as the Portugese one).

Really it was a series of extraordinarily favorable circumstances that allowed the Dutch to triumph over Spain.

Not really. Spain never could send huge armies to the Netherlands, a lot of their military power was needed to fight wars, protect colonies and European holdings and to expand in both Europe and abroad. The Spanish army was also very archaic whereas the Dutch army relied more on modern weaponry and musket warfare. The Spanish atrocities and the rumours of them only fueled La Leyenda Negra and increased resistance against the Spaniards, most notably the Geuzen, who harassed the Spaniards. Another keynote was the wealth of the Dutch. Many of the dukes that led the initial revolt were already very wealthy, even for European standards. This, and the later trade, national debt and banking, meant that the Dutch could supply their army with the latest weaponry and buy large amounts of mercenaries as well. Around 1600 the heartland of the Netherlands was Dutch and in peace, causing an even bigger economic, naval and military production.

didn't say you were weak. I said the Dutch Republic was not as militarily strong as the Kingdom of Spain.

Depends.

Certain factors allowed the Dutch to prevail against superior might however, mostly alone, but interventions and distractions were decisive at times. Just look at Breda 1625, Spinola had badly defeated the Dutch and Maurice of Nassau, the great Dutch leader and son of William the Silent, died from illness he contracted at the siege. Spain had Holland on it's knees at that time but Spinola was forced to transfer his army to the Rhine and ultimately to Italy, where he died not to long after from illness contracted while on campaign. By that time the Dutch had received enough of a breathing space to recover for another round.

Right. Spinola captured Breda but the leadership was simply transferred to Maurice's brother, who captured the Spanish stronghold of Den Bosch several years later, which was deemed inpregnable. The March along the Meuse a few years later was even more succesful and ended in the conquest of various Dutch cities. The death of Maurice and the conquest of Breda apparantly wasn't enough. Prior to his death, Maurice conquered nearly ten cities before Breda.

Also, the Spanish thought Holland was theirs too when Antwerp fell to Parma in 1585 and the assassination of William of Orange a year before.

In the words comparable to those of V: You may shoot a man, or capture a city but you will never kill an ideal; ideas are bulletproof.

[Selim Yavuz]

The Spanish government was horrible. It was incredibly centralised and it spawned a large quantity of mad kings and queens.
True, true. Apart from the ''powerful and large fleets of Spain and France part''. They certainly weren't powerful or large (The Dutch fleet in the 17th century was twice as big as the English one and five times as big as the Portugese one).
Not really. Spain never could send huge armies to the Netherlands, a lot of their military power was needed to fight wars, protect colonies and European holdings and to expand in both Europe and abroad. The Spanish army was also very archaic whereas the Dutch army relied more on modern weaponry and musket warfare. The Spanish atrocities and the rumours of them only fueled La Leyenda Negra and increased resistance against the Spaniards, most notably the Geuzen, who harassed the Spaniards. Another keynote was the wealth of the Dutch. Many of the dukes that led the initial revolt were already very wealthy, even for European standards. This, and the later trade, national debt and banking, meant that the Dutch could supply their army with the latest weaponry and buy large amounts of mercenaries as well. Around 1600 the heartland of the Netherlands was Dutch and in peace, causing an even bigger economic, naval and military production.

Depends.

Right. Spinola captured Breda but the leadership was simply transferred to Maurice's brother, who captured the Spanish stronghold of Den Bosch several years later, which was deemed inpregnable. The March along the Meuse a few years later was even more succesful and ended in the conquest of various Dutch cities. The death of Maurice and the conquest of Breda apparantly wasn't enough. Prior to his death, Maurice conquered nearly ten cities before Breda.

Also, the Spanish thought Holland was theirs too when Antwerp fell to Parma in 1585 and the assassination of William of Orange a year before.

In the words comparable to those of V: You may shoot a man, or capture a city but you will never kill an ideal; ideas are bulletproof.

Like i said, favorable circumstances, i.e. Inablility to comcentrate armies on the Dutch, lack of money, confused leadership etc. These allowed the Dutch to beat a Spain that had far more manpower and money than them. You say (or imply rather) that Spain was poor, this is not true. Spain was weak financially but it had a solid economic base and could and did find the money to field more and larger armies. You also conviently omitted the fact that right when Holland was about to break against the Duke of Parma, he had to make prepartions to invade England on Philip's orders. Then he had to deal with France, allowing the Dutch a breathing space, just like I said with Spinola. Lastly the Spanish Monarchy was hardly centralized, the Kings had to deal with all kinds of snags, they taxed Castile out of all proportion to i's economic strength becasue they could not get Aragon or Naples to pay due to their "historic rights." The king was not as powerful as you would think, the age of absolutism would not come to Louis XIV, and would not come to Spain until Philip V. The Spanish ministers like Olivares were very powerful, and Olivares for one was quite clever and capable. You seem to show Spain in a very unfavorable light, which is not fair to Spain, as you said the Dutch had better armies than them and they had archaic tactics. You must be joking, as a Spanish Army was not defeated in the Field until Le Grande Condé beat them at Rocroi 19 May 1643, hardly the achievement of an archaic structure. I know you may think that the Dutch victories at Turnhout and Nieuwpoort, but it must be kept in mind that the Spanish Monroy and Villar Tercios easily routed the Dutch infantry on the left of their line and were only saved by the Dutch Cavalry, which forced a Spanish withdrawal, which while being a defeat was not a decisive one.

[Ludicus]

(The Dutch fleet in the 17th century was twice as big as the English one and five times as big as the Portugese one).

In Asia, the EIC had survived the crucial period of 1623 to 1652 when the VOC had both the military power and motivation to extinguish the English Company.
But,

Between 1649 and 1651 the leaders of the Commonwealth double the size of the English fleet. By 1652 they are ready to challenge Dutch merchant fleets passing through the Channel.
In the mid-17th century Holland has been the leading economic power in Europe and at least the equal of England at sea. By the end of the century England's navy is stronger and her economy is overtaking Holland's.

[Inhuman One]

Well we survived amongst much bigger countries with far more population than us, we wouldnt have been able to do that if we where weak. Millitairy conquest was still quite common in Europe at this time after all, few would object if we would be destroyed by a neighbour.

[Selim Yavuz]

Well we survived amongst much bigger countries with far more population than us, we wouldnt have been able to do that if we where weak. Millitairy conquest was still quite common in Europe at this time after all, few would object if we would be destroyed by a neighbour.

I didn't say you were weak. I said the Dutch Republic was not as militarily strong as the Kingdom of Spain. Certain factors allowed the Dutch to prevail against superior might however, mostly alone, but interventions and distractions were decisive at times. Just look at Breda 1625, Spinola had badly defeated the Dutch and Maurice of Nassau, the great Dutch leader and son of William the Silent, died from illness he contracted at the siege. Spain had Holland on it's knees at that time but Spinola was forced to transfer his army to the Rhine and ultimately to Italy, where he died not to long after from illness contracted while on campaign. By that time the Dutch had received enough of a breathing space to recover for another round.

[naboudohonosor]

GUYS CAN YOU TELL ME HOW I CAN MAKE A CINEMATIC?PLEASE I'TS IMPORTANT!IF YOU KNOW SOMETHING THAT CAN HELP PLEASE REPLY TO ME

[S-te-Fan]

Hello everybody and fellow dutch people. I need people who can get me a information about a mod of my for Empire: Total War. It is about The Eighty Year's War. I thought this was a good location to ask .

Link

[Jagdpanzer]

I can't really say that the Dutch were more successful colonisers than the Spaniards, and blatantly saying the Spanish were stupid and the Dutch smart is to simple an explanation. No the Spanish leadership was quite intelligent, but the Dutch were born sailors, the Spaniards, not so much. Spain faced the same problem that France was to face over and over again, a government that knew what needed to be done, but because of financial weakness and the fact that the majority of the English and Dutch gained a living from the sea, and were therefore better than farmers and peasants forced onto ships, at sailing and fighting at sea. So even though Spain (and France) built large and powerful fleets these were hollow, against true sailors, and if it came down to it the leadership of those countries would sacrifice the navy for the army every time, the Dutch and English did the exact opposite. Really it was a series of extraordinarily favorable circumstances that allowed the Dutch to triumph over Spain. And the idea of a national bank was a novel one, and the Dutch concieved of it, which was another huge advantage.

Dutch sailors were mosty recruited from the proletariat of the cities and from the international population of the larger cities. Many sailors in the dutch navy (and soldiers in the dutch army) were foreigners. It was a job for people at the bottom of society. So saying that the dutch navy was better because the dutch were born sailors isn't right.

,the red knight

Source: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staatse_vloot (it's in dutch)

[Selim Yavuz]

[quote=The red knight;3817252]Dutch sailors were mosty recruited from the proletariat of the cities and from the international population of the larger cities. Many sailors in the dutch navy (and soldiers in the dutch army) were foreigners. It was a job for people at the bottom of society. So saying that the dutch navy was better because the dutch were born sailors isn't right.

,the red knight

Thanks for that. I was not aware. In the British Navy Parliament would pressgang experienced sailors into service, which gave them an edge over their opponents, I figured the Dutch Navy would be similiar, due to the fact that many Dutchman were born sailors. Silly me though . I based my argument on an assumption and will readily admit that you are correct.

[Yoram777]

Dutch sailors were mosty recruited from the proletariat of the cities and from the international population of the larger cities. Many sailors in the dutch navy (and soldiers in the dutch army) were foreigners. It was a job for people at the bottom of society. So saying that the dutch navy was better because the dutch were born sailors isn't right.

,the red knight

Thanks for that. I was not aware. In the British Navy Parliament would pressgang experienced sailors into service, which gave them an edge over their opponents, I figured the Dutch Navy would be similiar, due to the fact that many Dutchman were born sailors. Silly me though . I based my argument on an assumption and will readily admit that you are correct.

@ the red knight, it isn't special to have foreigners in your military you know..
"ALL" major players of the time used foreign mercenaries on a huge scale.
Mercenaries of the time are not comparable to those of in previous TW era's, in the ETW era mercenaries where very professional and very well trained troops and it wasn't uncommon they actually made up the majority of an army.

The sailors and soldiers you're referring to where not mercenaries though..
The majority were Dutch born citizens, but since cities like Amsterdam played such an huge role at the time they attracted many immigrants.

The officers of the fleet recruited there own sailors and since the main cities had multinational populations there where also many non Dutch born citizens recruited,
but Dutch born or not they were citizens of the Dutch Republic, and being a sailor wasn't exactly a rare profession in the Dutch Republic
so there where plenty of very experienced sailors to choose from.

[Selim Yavuz]

@ the red knight, it isn't special to have foreigners in your military you know..
"ALL" major players of the time used foreign mercenaries on a huge scale.
Mercenaries of the time are not comparable to those of in previous TW era's, in the ETW era mercenaries where very professional and very well trained troops and it wasn't uncommon they actually made up the majority of an army.

The sailors and soldiers you're referring to where not mercenaries though..
The majority were Dutch born citizens, but since cities like Amsterdam played such an huge role at the time they attracted many immigrants.

The officers of the fleet recruited there own sailors and since the main cities had multinational populations there where also many non Dutch born citizens recruited,
but Dutch born or not they were citizens of the Dutch Republic, and being a sailor wasn't exactly a rare profession in the Dutch Republic
so there where plenty of very experienced sailors to choose from.

Thank you for that. I couldn't believe what I had heard. It seemed to me ridiculous that the Republic would not tap into it's substantial reserve of experienced sailors and thus allow it's fleet to be less effective. It makes no sense why they would throw petty criminals and the lowest rung of society on their ships, which were essential to Dutch independence and prosperity, when they had an abundance of trained sailors right there. Mercenaries pretty mush phased out by this time, France under the direction of Le Tellier and his son Louvois leading the way for national standing armies. Only England used mercenaries after that as conscription was bitterly contested by the people, and therefore the current government would not dare introduce it for fear of being swept out by a general election.

[Yoram777]

Mercenaries pretty mush phased out by this time, France under the direction of Le Tellier and his son Louvois leading the way for national standing armies. Only England used mercenaries after that as conscription was bitterly contested by the people, and therefore the current government would not dare introduce it for fear of being swept out by a general election.

hmm, maybe in the later years of the 18th century they were less used but for most of the century they where still very common.
(oh, and you're welcome )

Two quotes from wiki, showing both that mercenaries were still very common and that they were very capable or even elite troops:

17th and 18th centuries

During the 17th and 18th century extensive use was made of foreign recruits in the now regimented and highly drilled armies of Europe, beginning in a systematized way with the Thirty Years' War.
After the signing of the Treaty of Limerick (1691) the soldiers of the Irish Army who left Ireland for France took part in what is known as the Flight of the Wild Geese.
Subsequently, many made a living from working as mercenaries for continental armies, the most famous of whom was Patrick Sarsfield, who, having fallen mortally wounded at the Battle of Landen fighting for the French, said "If this was only for Ireland".
About a third of the infantry regiments of the French Royal Army prior to the French Revolution were recruited from outside France.
The largest single group were the twelve Swiss regiments (including the Swiss Guard).
Other units were German and one Irish Brigade (the "Wild Geese") had originally been made up of Irish volunteers.
By 1789 difficulties in obtaining genuinely Irish recruits had led to German and other foreigners making up the bulk of the rank and file.
The officers however continued to be drawn from long established Franco-Irish families.
During the reign of Louis XV there were also a Scottish, a Swedish, an Italian and a Walloon regiments recruited outside the borders of France.
The foreign infantry regiments comprised about 20,000 men in 1733, rising to 48,000 at the time of the Seven Years' War and being reduced in numbers thereafter.

During the American Revolution, King George III of England, hired German mercenary soldiers from some of the German principalities to supplement his Royal Army.
Although the German mercenaries came from a number of states, the majority came fro the German state of Hesse-Kassel.
This resulted in their American opponents referring to all of King George's German mercenaries as "Hessians", whether the Germans were actually from Hesse-Kassel or not.

The Spanish Army also made use of permanently established foreign regiments.
These comprised three Irish regiments one Italian and five Swiss.
In addition one regiment of the Royal Guard was recruited from Walloons.
The last of these foreign regiments was disbanded in 1815, following recruiting difficulties during the Napoleonic Wars.
One complication arising from the use of non-national troops occurred at the Battle of Bailén in 1808 when the "red Swiss" (so-called from their uniforms) of the invading French Army clashed bloodily with "blue Swiss" in the Spanish service.

Swiss mercenaries in the French army.

Swiss soldiers continued to serve as mercenaries with many nations from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries.
The most famous employer of these mercenaries was the French army, and the Swiss were an intrinsic, elite part of the French infantry forces.
The famed Swiss Guard regiment, the most senior of the thirteen Swiss mercenary regiments in French service, was essentially identical to the French Guards in organization and equipment other than wearing a red uniform as opposed to the blue uniforms of the French Guards.

The Swiss similarly adopted the musket in increasingly large numbers as the seventeenth century wore on, and abandoned the pike, their ancient trademark, altogether at around the same time as other troops in the French army, circa 1700.
The Swiss Guard, loyal to the last, was massacred in the French Revolution on August 10, 1792, dying to protect Louis XVI from the mob and assembled National Guardsmen although, ironically, the king had already fled the Tuileries Palace.
Napoleon's army also included Swiss troops, who fought well, and were allowed to keep their distinctive red uniforms (distinguishing them from the French troops, who wore blue), although this caused some confusion on the battlefield --it was the same color worn by Napoleon's enemies in the Spanish campaigns, the British infantry.

[Jagdpanzer]

it isn't special to have foreigners in your military you know.

That was not my point. where did I say that it was 'special' to have foreigners in the military?

Mercenaries of the time are not comparable to those of in previous TW era's, in the ETW era mercenaries where very professional and very well trained troops and it wasn't uncommon they actually made up the majority of an army.

The sailors and soldiers you're referring to where not mercenaries though..
The majority were Dutch born citizens, but since cities like Amsterdam played such an huge role at the time they attracted many immigrants.

I wonder why you make such a point about mercenaries vs. regular army. I never even used the word mercenaries or mentioned them. I just said that many soldiers/sailors in the navy/army were foreigners. I know that the army of the dutch republic had seperate regiments for diff nationalities. Why are you making such a fuss when i never even said they were mercenaries?

You misunderstood my mail. Enough said.
,the red knight

[Yoram777]

That was not my point. where did I say that it was 'special' to have foreigners in the military?

You didn't say it was special, but you pointed it out.. and so "as if" it was special, that's all..

I wonder why you make such a point about mercenaries vs. regular army. I never even used the word mercenaries or mentioned them. I just said that many soldiers/sailors in the navy/army were foreigners. I know that the army of the dutch republic had seperate regiments for diff nationalities. Why are you making such a fuss when i never even said they were mercenaries?

You misunderstood my mail. Enough said.
,the red knight

Relax, It's more like you misunderstood my post..

You can't really count them as foreigners if they're Dutch citizens, a foreigner is an outsider someone who's not part of a particular community.
(Like foreign mercenaries)

Mercenaries where often part of the regular army btw, what I mean by that is that they were not hired for a single job but instead they were part of the army for years..
Just like Swiss, Scottish and English men where common in the Dutch armies, there where also plenty of Dutch men who fought in other countries armies.

[Phalanx300]

Also, shouldn't the flag of our great Dutch republic be orange-white-blue, I noticed that CA choose for red-white-blue .

[jarnomiedema]

There's just one tiny little thing I didn't like about the Dutch Republic in the Campaign Map video.. It's a really minor thing and it can easily be solved, but here it is:

All the cities are labelled as "City name", "Province / Territory name". There's London - England, Edinburg - Scotland, Paris - France, Brussels - Flanders, Cologne - Rhineland and...

Amsterdam, Netherlands.. Aiii.. They mean well, I know, but technically speaking that should probably be Amsterdam, Holland.

As most of us here know, the Dutch Republic was composed of seven provinces and Holland was the most powerful one of them all, with Amsterdam as its most important city. So yeah, I guess that'll have to be changed..

[Yoram777]

There's just one tiny little thing I didn't like about the Dutch Republic in the Campaign Map video.. It's a really minor thing and it can easily be solved, but here it is:

All the cities are labelled as "City name", "Province / Territory name". There's London - England, Edinburg - Scotland, Paris - France, Brussels - Flanders, Cologne - Rhineland and...

Amsterdam, Netherlands.. Aiii.. They mean well, I know, but technically speaking that should probably be Amsterdam, Holland.

As most of us here know, the Dutch Republic was composed of seven provinces and Holland was the most powerful one of them all, with Amsterdam as its most important city. So yeah, I guess that'll have to be changed..

Even if they don't fix that, CA already confirmed you can name them yourself so it's not that big of a deal.
Besides that, England and France have provinces too yet they use City name - Country name.
So Amsterdam - Netherlands would be good enough.
(although more attention to these small details would always be welcome off course)



Now what I really dont like is the borders... the Spanish Netherlands is huge, and nearly half of the Dutch European territory seems to be missing.

United Netherlands & Spanish Netherlands at 1700 (real) <> United Netherlands & Spanish Netherlands at 1700 (Empire TW)



Zeeland is entirely missing...
The only plus point about this is that you can use the Rhine river to keep out enemy's, since there is only one bridge.:hmmm:





But there is also plenty the video showed us that I do like :

1. We have two nice fleets right next to the coast of our homeland, and there's probably some more in the India and America's map.
(there was already one visible on the old India screenshot)




2. Looks like the British and the Dutch will start with an alliance and are trading partners (as predicted ) (look at the flags)



and.. last but not least..



Dutch territory in South America is in! (Guyana) (look down right)
I suppose that makes the Dutch Republic the "only" faction that will start with territory in "all" maps.

[Mangerman]

2. Looks like the British and the Dutch will start with an alliance and are trading partners (as predicted ) (look at the flags)

And look at the name of the British King: "William... the 3rd" anyone?