Talk:Eighty Years' War

message: As I wrote on the talk page of the Dutch Revolt article there is a need for an article about the military aspects of the Eighty Years' War. After all, it was a war :-) The current article about the Dutch Revolt suffers from confusion on a number of fronts, first of all the title, which does not cover the contents. I would admit that there is a need for an article that covers what the Dutch call "De Nederlandse Opstand" (which means the same thing as Dutch Revolt in Dutch). Such an article would at most cover the events between 1567 and 1609 (though a shorter period might be in order) and would treat of the political, social and religious aspect of the first part of the Eighty Years' War. This would correspond with what is usually called "the Dutch Revolt" in Anglophone historiography (viz. e.g. John Lothrop Motley). In this article, entitled Eighty Years' War, I have purposely followed a different tack, glossing over most of the political and social aspects of the Dutch Revolt, but stressing the military organizational and strategic aspects (and mentioning as many battles and sieges as possible). Also, in this article the second part of the war (after the Twelve Years' Truce), which does not fit well in the "Dutch Revolt" framework, as it was just a "conventional" war between two sovereign states, that had already recognized each other as such at the signing of the Truce, can be more rationally discussed.
The length of the article bothers me too. I would have liked to keep it shorter, but discovered during the writing that many articles that I otherwise could have referred to, were woefully lacking in the details I felt were necessary (the current article about Twelve Years' Truce is a case in point). I have still put in wikilinks to such articles and even referred to them as "main" articles, but I have felt constrained to nevertheles put in the lacking details in this article. Maybe this could be rectified in future.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. This page is more than 60 kilobytes larger than the article on the Second World War. You should definitely consider splitting off some content from this article, because as you've mentioned, the other articles are lacking in details, which could be provided from this article. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Second World War took only six years :-)--Ereunetes (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: But the Hundred Years' War is only 53 kilobytes. :( --Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This artivle is very good, but is just too large (in the 200 largest wikipedia articles, and nearly double the recommended size) - that doesn't nessecary mean that stuff needs to be deleted. It should be split off into seperate stand-alone articles and a more brief summary listed here. There at least half a dozens sections here which would easily pass notability as seperate articles. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, plus the lead does not make clear the distinction between this and the Dutch Revolt (nor does that lead).  Many other articles, linked as "main article", seem in fact much shorter than the coverage here - eg Twelve Years' Truce. One could break it into two or three sections, Military history of the Dutch Revolt for Pt1 maybe, or disperse it to the "main articles", or some combination of both.  Johnbod (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Before you get too excited, please take a look at Talk:Dutch Revolt. That may explain to people that are evidently new to the subject that there are good historiographical reasons to prefer an article on the Eighty Years' War and another one on the Dutch revolt (I am repeating myself here; do people read the earlier entries on this page?). The fact that they right now cover much of the same ground is a matter of much debate (the Dutch Revolt article started out with the title "Eighty Years' War" which is the English translation of the title of the Dutch wikipedia article, before it was renamed to its current title). I have made a case for a complete overhaul of the Dutch Revolt article in which the political and social aspects of the Revolt (the first twenty or thirty years of the war) would get their proper place. It would then be a proper supporting article for the Eighty Years' War article. Alas, that is not the case yet and the lacuna has yet to be filled. The problem with breaking up this article is that we still need an article on the war in question. It indeed would have been ideal if the writers of a number of supporting articles (like Twelve Years' Truce) had done a better job. This article might have been a lot shorter if that had been the case. However, trifling with those articles (as with the Dutch Revolt article) will probably land one in an edit war with the proud owners.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I doubt that. Anyway, as it stands this article is too long for dial-up users etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously the issue here is no longer the article name, but the size of the article. Splitting sections off would be good idea but personally, calling the article 'Dutch Revolt' shouldn't happen in the same way that the American Revolution and the American Revolutionary War article are seperate. Dutch revolt is just too flippant when used for the Eighty Years' War because there were, in fact many Dutch revolts against Spanish rule throughout her history. Uhlan talk  05:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why this article? 

message: How can a twelve years' truce be fitted in the period 1609-1619, which are only eleven years all together? In the article there is a link to the main article Twelve Years' Truce, which says the truce is from 1609 to 1621; also the atricle about the Eighty Years War, which is very much like te Dutch Revolt article, also says (with sources!) 1609-1621.
Where is the source that says 1609-1619?
--DrJos (talk) 09:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you asked :-) It is true that the Twelve Years' Truce was contracted for twelve years (in advance, in other words). Formally, it lasted for twelve years and for that reason it automatically expired in April 1621, when it was not renewed. However, the fighting already started again in 1619 with the Dutch intervention on the side of the Bohemian rebels and the Elector Palatine. I used the phrase Twelve Years' Truce here as a subtitle for a subsection, covering the period referenced. However, you have a point. I'll eliminate the period designation in the title to avoid confusion.--Ereunetes (talk) 18:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twelve years truce (1609-1619?) 

message: Why all this talk on the article being to long? What are we, children? Are our attention spans that short? Come on! This is an encyclopaedia. It should be detailed. I want the details. If you can't read the whole thing, don't. Go watch your cartoons. Let the rest of us get back to improving Wikipedia with even more detailed articles. The article should, by no means, be shortened. PS: This article is not too long for dial-up users. Do the math. --Thorwald (talk) 01:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:SIZE. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I know all about that guideline. I simply don't agree with it. Some articles are about complex subjects and need to be longer. Of course, they could also be broken into smaller pieces, as long as the goal is not to water down the content and make it "easier" for readers. We shouldn't spoon-feed. --Thorwald (talk) 07:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

text: I apologize. I read the arguments above too quickly. I initially thought the arguments about the article being "too long" had to do with it having too much information. I know understand them to be more about the actual length and wanting to split the article into smaller pieces. As long as we keep the information (and even expound and expand upon), it is a good idea. Sorry for the fuss. --Thorwald (talk) 08:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A word of caution about splitting anything up: it should be done, if at all, by people who know what they are doing. There was a suggestion earlier to hive some of it off to an article about "the military aspects of the Dutch Revolt". This would amount to turning everything upside down, as the Eighty Years' War is the military aspect of the Revolt. Besides, as is explained in the article, the Dutch Revolt covers only the first thirty years or so. Far better would be to write an article that properly covers the Dutch Revolt (see Talk:Dutch Revolt). The first part of this article could then (but only then) be appropriately shortened. I also wouldn't object to first improving the articles on Twelve Years' Truce and Peace of Münster and then condensing the sections in this article. Only don't expect me to do the work :-) You could use my work here, though. It is in the public domain, after all.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That was the point: "the Dutch Revolt covers only the first thirty years or so".  It would obviously be best if you do it. Johnbod (talk) 22:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not the one having a problem with the length of this article. I am just afraid of people spoiling it on spurious gronds. I do have a problem with the Dutch Revolt article, as explained on its Talk page, but I don't want to start editing that without first having a proper discussion.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Too long?

message: This is a nicely done article, but it no longer meets the criteria in WikiProject Military History for B class.  The citations and sourcing in the article are insufficient for this rating.  I am changing the rating for this reason.  Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: With respect, I think it is a waste of time to try and meet the rating criteria of the Military History project. There are those that write articles. And then there are those that rate them.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: class change

message: I think this article has various problems.
First my opinion is that this article is long, as some people have already pointed out. I read it on a MID and got serious problems loading it.
Secondly, I think some parts do not include any form of order. If you begin reading the first five parts of the article, they don't follow any chronological order and include facts that are not part of the war itself, but of its consequences (and could be in a paragraph named it so) and others which try to be a summary of the events, but are so bad arranged that you can not understand it is supposed to be a brief version of what you are going to read latter, until you reach the fifth part which is named: 'Prelude'. Besides this, there are some issues discussed in this first four parts, which are barely touched after that, like the execution of the of the counts of Egmont and Hoorn.
:I could  not agree more. I wrote the original version of the article, but someone decided to "improve" on my lead section. Hence the current unsatisfactory form of the initial part of the article. I also don't agree with its sycophantic Orangist tenor, which I hope is not shared by the remainder of the article.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree wholeheartedly on all of these points.  The style is chatty and contains any number of unqualified assertions.  Whilst the level of detail in terms of facts is good, it should be split down and rewritten.  It is an important subject and not one which should be left in this form. JohnAndrew (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various problems 

message: Historians nowadays do not use the term Eighty Years War any more. Instead the Dutch Revolt is the normal, accepted term as the period is not actually considered a war nowadays. I would suggest changing the name of this article to “The Dutch Revolt”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xbrouwer (talk • contribs) 13:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: See the discussion under the first section of this discussion page.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing the name to: The Dutch revolt 

message: This article is something like four times longer than it should be. Part of writing an encyclopedia article is knowing what not to include and what belongs in articles on more-specific subjects. If no one with expertise on the subject is willing to cut this article down to size, I may just do it myself. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, when did this happen? I haven't followed this for a while. IMHO it is not as much the structure, which seems fairly ok, but the sections within that structure (e.g. the rebellion 1572-1576 is almost the length of an article on its own)Arnoutf (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok I started shortening it. It is a lot of work so will go in etappes; probably will need a second round to foucs even more. To preserve the texts for reference (as I boldly cut) I set up User:Arnoutf/80yrswarcutout where I just put everything I took out. Arnoutf (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I have cut about 40000 B (out of about 200000) so a 20% reduction. I got to 1579, so still in the early stages.... Arnoutf (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Well I have been shortening it, and that was indeed a bit of on the go redrafting in a language that is not my own. I had no time to carefully check it all. So thanks for picking up the mistakes. Arnoutf (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you going with the stuff you remove? This should not just be cut. If there is no other place to add it to, just create new articles for the full original text. Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but they are currently way too long and I think trimming this article to a readable size should have prioroty. Arnoutf (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if you are doing the cutting, you should do it. Frankly your new taxt is so sloppy you should not continue doing this without a native-speaking copyeditor who has agreed to follow you. It is not acceptable to leave passages like: "With the death f Requesens the States of Brabant raised troops to protect Brussels. Philipe de Croÿ, Duke of Aerschot, stadtholder of Flanders took over governemtn and allowed the States-General soon started peace negotiations with the States of Holland and Zeeland agreeing on the demand that all Spanish troops should be withdrawn." Some of your mistakes have been corrected by others but many remain. If it stays this bad it would be better just to revert the lot. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right I have been too sloppy; I went through and got the worst out. I think I tried to do too much in one go, which stopped me from doing checks. And I should have probably used spell check in word or something to get the obvious typoes out. It is still rather telegramme style because I tried to shorten it without changing content and structure which resulted in a number of short sentences that may need fixing.  Arnoutf (talk) 22:56, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  You'll see from the sections above that I have always agreed this article is much too long.  But trimming it like this just brings it closer to Dutch Revolt, which I still think will be merged with this one day.  From this perspective, preserving the long but good version in perhaps a series of articles is especially important.  They can of course always be rescued from the history, but I hope this will not be forgotten. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, I have created Causes of the Dutch revolt as a home for all stuff pre 1568 I removed. Of course this will need some work to become a stand alone article, but the material is copied in there. Arnoutf (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reduced the size of the article by about 0.4% for the time being. The article still needs much more reduction work yet. (talk) 16:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on it. Mathijsvs (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waaaaay too long 

message: It has been proposed that the article Eighty Years' War be merged with the article Dutch Revolt. As no discussion section has been created for this discussion, I have created one! I am agnostic on this issue and am open to persuasion as to what if anything needs to be done from no change through to one article becoming a summary article through to a complete merger. I think  those who added the templates should explain what they want and why they want it. -- PBS (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a merge is needed because of two things. First of all, the two terms are synonyms; they describe the same set of events that lead to the Dutch independence from Spain. Secondly, "The (Dutch) Revolt" is now the more common and accepted term in the Netherlands and the eighty-years war is perceived as old fashioned. Academic circles use "Revolt". For example, in Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden (Histories of the Low Countries) by J.C.H. Blom, a prominent historian on Dutch history, the term "Revolt" is used.  Jippb (talk) 11:01, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What Dutch historians call the war is not relevant to the article title. What matters is what the war is called in reliable English language sources. -- PBS (talk) 15:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regardless, both are the same events. Also, most Academic sources that I have seen use Dutch Revolt, and most of them were English.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.162.159.205 (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I would humbly like to draw attention to the discussion under the heading "Why this article?" on this talk page and the arguments presented there for retaining both articles separately.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

text: I too would like to see both articles to remain separate entities, mostly for the above mentioned reasons. Mathijsvs (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge discussion 

message: As I'm reading through this article, I notice some instances that are lacking context.
* Orange's exile in Dillenburg became the center for plans to invade the Netherlands.
A tiny bit of motivation here would be nice.
* Shortly thereafter, a Sea Beggars squadron defeated a royalist fleet in a naval battle on the Ems.
Who are the Sea Beggars? [I do know] It should explain quickly what they are, otherwise this makes no sense.
* However, a Huguenot army invading Artois was pushed back into France and annihilated by the forces of Charles IX of France in June.
What Hugenots? What does France have to do with it? Neither has been mentioned at all before.
I'll add more concerns later, or possibly address these. I do understand the article is incredibly long, but some of it doesn't make sense as-is. Oreo Priest talk 04:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking context 

message: Not only is this article too long but it reads like somebody's essay instead of an encyclopedia's article. For example:
It is impossible to know whether the course of history would have been different without the overthrow of the Oldenbarnevelt regime and the judicial murder of the old statesman.
Whether it is impossible to know or not, it is none of the business of an encyclopedic article to speculate or weigh up.  Sentences like this should be removed and others edited of such speculative or subjective judgements. What is needed is a careful checking of every sentence in this article from start to finish to remove this sort of inappropriate text. This will also assist to reduce the size of this oversized article. Provocateur (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unencyclopedic

message: The section (subheader "The Dutch Republic resurges (1588–1609)", sixth paragraph) claims the role of the Dutch navy was "crucial" and that England was "never in any real danger". A tall claim, and one I find very close to speculation and OR (even if the single source supports it, it is still conjecture).
The section does end by conceding that the role of the Dutch was "moot". Isn't this the only truly substantive fact to take away?
The entire section is still highly troublesome. There is only a single source. Does it really support this view, and everything said in the subsection? What about other viewpoints, other historians? 213.112.134.102 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I know the reason why this claim was made. The Spanish Armada was a fleet that was meant to facilitate an invasion of England by escorting a Spanish army across the channel. The Army was assembled in the Southern Netherlands (present-day Belgium). However, the port that held the transport ships was being blockaded by a Dutch fleet. As such, even IF England had lost the Battle of the Gravelines, the blockade would still be there and the Spanish army would still be stuck on the continent. Of course, there is no telling what would've happened if the Spanish won the Battle of the Gravelines. Perhaps they would've tried to break the blockade. Perhaps their ships were too damaged to make the attempt. Perhaps the English would've sent ships to assist the Dutch blockade. Who knows? The assertion that England was never in any real danger is nonsense, but the Dutch blockade of the Spanish transport ships is often forgotten. Omegastar (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  role of the Dutch navy in the defeat of the Spanish Armada 

message: Should the infobox treat the Eighty Years' War as a part of the European wars of religion? 77.125.114.138 (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That classification seems fairly novel and not necessarily mainstream (and probably was not used in the age of the 80 yrs wars). Also, let's make sure the European wars of religion article is properly sourced before we consider changes to other articles based on it. So I would say no, at least not for now. Arnoutf (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it was one of them - religion was at the heart of it - arguably far more than in the Thirty Years War and some other wars always so classified. Whether we want yet another template box is a very different matter. Johnbod (talk) 12:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the confusion but that was more or less my point. Is the framing "European wars of religion" sufficiently important and mainstream to add yet another template box. And I do not really see much evidence of that importance. Arnoutf (talk) 15:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. I agree re the template. Johnbod (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  As a part of the European wars of religion 

message: I am returning after many years to this article, that I drafted in 2009 (see page history), and am appalled by what has been done to it. I understand why it was split and am at peace with that :-) But looking at the section "First Forty Years (1566-1609)" I don't understand why the people that so enthusiastically edited the article in the first few years, acquiesced in this piece of nonsense. The section refers correctly to Dutch Revolt and Eighty Years' War (1566-1609) as the main articles, but does not reflect what is in those articles. The whole thing appears to be concocted by someone who had only a nodding acquaintance with the material. The section has no references and few relevant wikilinks. I was struck by the inanity of sentences like "William of Orange decided to strike back at Spain, having organized three armies. He lost every battle and the Eighty Years' War was underway." (!) and "..the Dutch rebels formed the Wild Beggars and the Beggars of the Sea" (Wild Beggars? One would like to see a reference and if possible a wikilink, for instance to the Geuzen article). It goes on: "While Alba rested (fron what?), he sent his son Don Fadrique to fight the Beggars. Don Fadrique's troops indiscriminately sacked homes, monasteries and churches. They stole the jewels and costly robes of the religious. They trampled consecrated hosts, butchered men and violated women. etc. etc." Really? Violated women, maybe. But "consecrated hosts"? I think that would have been a burning-at-the-stake offense in the Army of Flanders. "Little Naarden surrendered to the Spaniards. They greeted the victorious soldiers with tables set with feasts. The soldiers ate, drank, then killed every person in the town." Seriously? "Don Fadrique's army later attempted to besiege Alkmaar but the rebels won by opening the dikes and routing the Spanish troops. When Don Fadrique came to Haarlem a brutal battle ensued. " Here the temporal order is reversed, but that is the least of the objections I could think up. "Each army hung captives on crosses facing the enemy. The Dutch defenders taunted the Spanish besiegers by staging parodies of Catholic rituals on the cities (city's?) ramparts." And I could go on and on. Where is @Arnoutf when we need him? He used to take a serious interest in this article in the days that he drastically shortened it. In any case I think that I have reason to complain that this WP:SPLIT was thoroughly mishandled. I think the C-class Rating should be revoked until this is remedied.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very sorry to hear this. The history shows that the section was only 2 lines, with an expansion tag since 2014, until last October, when a now-blocked isp added the current text in a series of edits (almost his only ones).  Any edits you want to make will be welcome, I'm sure. The stats show that if the article ever had any "proud owners" (as you suggested some years ago, above) it doesn't have any more. User:Arnoutf hasn't edited the actual article since 2010, for one. At the least, the necessary actions after the split have not been done. Eighty Years' War (1566–1609) has a wholly inadequate 2-line lead. A proper lead there could double as the section here, I think. Johnbod (talk) 01:24, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Arnoutf gutted my 2009 article in 2010 I have washed my hands of it (and for a number of years of wikipedia as a whole). At the time (2010) I would have appreciated it, if someone would have had the courtesy of consulting me, but as you will find on my talk-page that didn't happen. In any case, I think it would be unethical if I made any edits on the page, after having placed the "multiple issues" banner on the section. But I won't object if someone uses fragments of my original edits (that are still available in the page history). That may help make the rewrite manageable. My suggestion would be to follow the original structure of this part of the article (which I borrowed at the time from Israel), and then use "filler" sparingly (or the article will get "too long" again). It should be realized that the only really "military" parts of the entire Dutch Revolt were the military incursions of Orange and his brothers in 1568; the capture of Holland by the Sea Beggars in 1572, followed by the punitive campaigns by Alba senior and junior in 1572-74; the reconquest campaign by Parma in 1580-1585; the reforms of the Dutch States Army by the two young stadtholders, followed by the conquest of the North-East in 1590-1597; and finally Spinola's counteroffensive, followed by stalemate up to the Twelve Tears' Truce. The very important period between the Spanish bankruptcy, which caused the temporary collapse of the Spanish army, around 1575 and the Union of Utrecht in 1579 is more a matter for the Dutch Revolt article, as the developments in this period were of a diplomatic and political nature (though there was some fighting). So my advice would be to fill in this framework, and put some meat in the period 1568 and 1572-1574. But this is just a suggestion. Meanwhile I have already made a number of edits in the split-off article (mainly restored some of my deleted text from 2009, but only the most important stuff, like the role of the inundations, for which I found some references). Hope this is useful.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:23, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have rewritten the lede of the Eighty Years' War (1566-1609) article, as you suggested. But as ledes have to be kept short, I have concentrated on the historiographical aspects, and the relationships between this article, and Dutch Revolt, Twelve Years' Truce, and that article. I think a new version of the controversial section "First Forty Years" (though it may contain elements of my new lede) should contain more narrative, and so be more voluminous. See my suggestions immediately above this post.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I inserted a summary of the pre-2014 text. Summary Style should not work out as No Summary Style :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:06, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much for your trouble. Much better now.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:04, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section First forty years (1566–1609) 

message: This section is in the article two times. It is the third section in the chapter Secession and reconquest (1579-1588), and it is also the last section in the chapter The Dutch republic resurges (1588-1609). Is it meant to be in there twice?
At this time, on the initiative of Emperor Rudolph II a final attempt was made to attain a general peace between Philip and the States-General in the German city of Cologne. As both sides insisted on mutually exclusive demands these peace talks only served to make the irreconcilability of both parties obvious; there appeared to be no more room for the people who favoured the middle ground, like Count Rennenberg. Rennenberg, a Catholic, now made up his mind to go over to Spain. In March 1580 he called for the provinces in his remit to rise against the "tyranny" of Holland and the Protestants. However, this only served to unleash an anti-Catholic backlash in Friesland and Overijssel. The States of Overijssel were finally convinced to adhere to the Union of Utrecht. Nevertheless, Rennenberg's "treason" posed a severe strategic threat for the Union, especially after Parma sent him reinforcements in June. He managed to capture most of Groningen, Drenthe and Overijssel in the next months.[41]  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maarten Vodde (talk • contribs) 11:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  a section is in the article twice 

message: This is a conlict that went on for 80 Years and has a lot of battles and images of those battles. I think a collage of a few paintings would do it more justice.
So which kind of combination of paintings or example would people like to see in the infobox?
File:Eighty Years War Collage.jpg|Example 1: The Spanish Fury (1576), the Siege of Ostend (1601-1604), the Battle of the Narrow Seas (1602) and the Siege of Breda (1625)
File:Eighty Years War Collage 2.jpg|Example 2: The Siege of Alkmaar (1572), the Act of Abjuration (1581), the Capture of Breda (1590) and the Siege of Den Bosch (1629)
File:Eighty Years War Collage 3.jpg|Example 3: The Battle of Empel (1585), the Battle of the Narrow Seas (1602), the Battle of Gibraltar (1607) and the Siege of Breda (1625)
File:Eighty Years War Collage 4.jpg|Example 4: Joyful Entry of the Duke of Anjou in Antwerp (1582), the Spanish Fury (1576), the Siege of Ostend (1601-1604) and the Siege of Den Bosch (1629)
DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I always think collages are a bad idea, giving a number of images that are too small to see or caption properly. In infoboxes they make the box too long. Plus I don't like paintings to be cropped square. There are some nice images which could be properly captioned and placed around the main text, or in mini-galleries. But let's face it, many of these are standard compositions from the military art of the period, that could be anybody, anywhere.  Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you saying, but the first two problems you state aren't really that big of a problem. The infoboxes of War of the Spanish Succession Nine Years' War and Franco-Dutch War look fine. The infobox reflects the article and so should the image in the infobox. You can't represent conflicts of this scale with one image and especially not when the character of the war changed so much in those eighty years. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Image in the Infobox