Talk:Dutch Republic

message: It would be nice to have pulp references for further reading, or external links. I would like to know more about the problems associated with the Dutch Republic. I am reading Thomas Jefferson's autobiography and he has a Dr. Rush citing 3 reasons for the decay of liberty in the Dutch republic: 1) requisite unanimity on all decisions; 2) obligation to consult constituents on all matters; and 3) voting with each 'staadt' or state having an equal voice.
Hmmmm... ~Lije
:Well, these were standard objections against the Republic in the 17th century. However it defeated Habsburgs, Stuarts and Bourbons (i.e. all the major absolutist dynasties) in this period. Dutch decline, such as it was, was simply caused by the fact that former Dutch superiority was based on a more modern way of living. When other countries adopted its culture, its relative advantage disappeared. The Dutch couldn't care less. They even applauded being annexated by Napoleon: so much more opportunity to influence the French! Today The Greater Netherlands are still the central metroplex of European civilisation, with London and Paris as its suburbs. But we like to keep this a secret ;o)
--MWAK 21:34, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also in the 18th century.  This ties to the "influences" section: yes, the Dutch constitutional system was a source of inspiration to the creators of the US Constitution.  But in many ways that inspiration was "things to avoid" rather than "things to emulate".  You can see this repeatedly in the Federalist papers, where the benefits of a strong central authority are advocated with references to the troubles that the Dutch got themselves into by not having one.  Paul Koning 18:36, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The 5th paragraph the sentence "The Dutch dominated world trade in the 17th century", has world trade linked. While this would seem to be a good link, it is not, because world trade automatically redirects to the WTO( world trade organisation), and that article tells nothing about world trade history.
:I replaced the link with "History of international trade". Markussep 07:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong link 

message: I added this section, with just one paragraph on the influence the Dutch Republics had on the founders of the U.S. Constitution. I hope it deserved a new section; I didn't see it fitting in any existing section. What does everyone think?
It's a general category; feel free to add other influences. --Spiff666 13:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but there's a very different viewpoint that should go there: the Federalist Papers repeatedly mention the "constitution" of the Dutch Republic as an example of a model to avoid.  Paul Koning 23:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Influences 

message: If my history is right, it is not only that what is today the Netherlands, was once called the United Provinces, but also what is today Argentina, besides a territory in former British Indian Empire, the United_Provinces_of_Agra_and_Oudh, renamed as "Uttar Pradesh" (or the "Northern Province") after Indian independence.
: You're right. Argentina was called the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata once. Robk 14:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More than one 

message: From the Wall Street article:
:The name of the street derives from the fact that during the 17th century, it formed the northern boundary of the New Amsterdam settlement where the Dutch had constructed a crude wall of timber and earthwork in 1652. The wall was ostensibly meant as a defense against attack from Lenape Indians, New England colonists, and the British, but it was never tested in battle. The wall was dismantled by the British in 1699.
From the Dutch Republic article:
:While the banking system evolved in the Low Countries, it was quickly incorporated to the well-connected English, stimulating the English economic output. The legacy of this new banking system can still be heard through a well-respected name in the financial world of today; it is a name that is based on these original financial traders: the Walloons made the voyage to New Amsterdam too, and their name is connected to the street where they started their trading: Wall Street — today's largest stock market in the world. The Dutch word for Walloon is Waal (Wall).
Anybody know which is correct? -EDM 01:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that it was named for the wall. john k 15:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought it was the named for the wall as well, but is their a possibility that we think this due to a misunderstanding by British inhabitants at the time? This is very intriguing indeed. Bennyj600 (talk) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding from this, this and this is that the name has nothing to do with Walloons, nor Waal, Bavaria, nor Waal (South Holland), nor Waal (river), etc. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of name of Wall Street 

message: The table at the right side suggests that Amsterdam was the capital city of the Dutch Republic. Since the provinces of the Republic were all sovereign entities, there was no official capital. Amsterdam was the most imporant city of the Netherlands at that time, that's true, but the executive and legislative powers resided at The Hague (in fact, they still do). Therefore, it is better to either remove the capital from the table or replace Amsterdam with The Hague. Robk 14:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, and the Dutch version of the article agrees with your observation.  I've changed it to match what it says.  Thanks! Paul Koning 16:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital 

message: The map in the infobox is incorrect as far as it does include: modern Belgium, modern Luxembourg, parts of modern Indonesia, parts modern South-Africa, etc.
The current map in the infobox includes only the modern territory of the Netherlands.
:These territories were never part of the Dutch Republic. Belgium and Luxembourg were the Southern Netherlands under Spanish and later Austrian souvereignty. The Cape Colony, Dutch Indies etc. were private possession of the VOC, and not incorporated into the Dutch Republic. Maartenvdbent 09:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Map 

message: I don't agree that the common name should be "Netherlands".  Consider the title "Rise of the Dutch Republic" -- the book by John Lothrop Motley.
If the issue is that the common name is used to link to things like the flag, then the template should give a way to override that; if there isn't one then the right answer is to fix the template.  (Or for a workaround, a redirect could be created.)
Paul Koning 10:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The common name does not appear in the template no one sees it unless the click edit its the function the infobox uses for successor states for example the Irish Free State uses the common name Ireland there is no need to change it. --Barryob  Vigeur de dessus 12:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ah..  thanks for setting me straight.  I withdraw my comment. Paul Koning 13:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common name 

message: Can anybody tell me what Francis van Aarssens is doing so prominently in the "see also" part. It seems quite out of place to me. Joost 99 (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Francis van Aarssens 

message: As far as I know my history the states were only equal in theory. In practice Holland dictated policy with bland disregard of the other states. This article gives the false impression that the Dutch republic was somewhat like the USA, but it was not. 
129.125.103.83 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not open an account, so we know whom we are talking to? But as to your point: it is a complicated matter. See First Stadtholderless Period for a treatment of the controversy about who was "boss" and during which era. It was not cut and dried. If there is any doubt that the Republic was more like the US under the Continental Congress than under the current US constitution, just look at Federalist Paper No. 20. But who says all current US states are equal?:-)--Ereunetes (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equal states? 

message: The section on religion is clearly written from a Catholic viewpoint and concentrates entirely on the intolerance of the official Calvinist church. The information is appropriate, but needs to be complemented by material on developments within Calvinism, such as the major Arminian controversy and the Synod of Dort. And was the position really uniform across the United Provinces? I would like to know more about the position of Lutheranism in the eastern provinces, and the Sephardic Jews of Amsterdam.  
--JamesWim (talk) 14:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Partly solved. Joost 99 (talk) 13:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion unsatisfactory 

message: There are two templates here which seem to come from History of the Netherlands. Although they are great overthere they don't seem to fit well with this article. The first is ok but it is badly placed as it floats somewhere in the middle of the page. The second is too general, it includes for example "The fight against Water" etc. To readers looking for information on the Dutch Republic this is not relevant. Readers are already referred to the general History of the Netherlands at the bottom of the page. Therefore: 
1. reposition the the first template. 
2. delete the second template. 
Anyone agree?
83.83.54.158 (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of the Netherlands templates 

message: Untill it was decided that the Stadtholdership would be hereditary, the republic did not have a monarch... Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk) 12:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think heredity is decisive for ascertaining if a country does or does not have a monarch. I don't know if "confederal crowned republic" (certainly looking at the stadtholderless periods) is the best form, but maybe the closest you can get to choosing a correct one. Joost 99 (talk) 15:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't believe so, as the official head of state was the weekly rotating president of the States-General. Besides that, the Stadtholder did not have executive power. He was the commander-in-chief in times of war, but he was a civil servent and empoyee of the States-General. During times of peace, the Stadtholder was fired and the raadspensionaris would gain more power. And last but not least, every single state was able to appoint it's own stadtholder, and although most states would appoint the same as Holland did, Friesland often had a different. Therefore it is false to say that the Republic was a crown republic. Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree.  The Stadtholder was not head of state. Additionally, "crowned republic" generally refers to states which are nominally monarchies, but function like republics.  The Dutch Republic (in the periods with a strong stadtholder, at least) functioned in the opposite manner - it was formally a republic, but was functionally more like a monarchy.   john k (talk) 13:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crown republic 

message: It would be very nice to have a map that is not from 1658. john k (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Like this one? Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we can do better; seems to be from the earliest days of the Republic and thus doesn't show the Generality Lands.  This one, or at least the part of it showing the Dutch Republic, is more what I had in mind - showing the 7 provinces, Drenthe, and the Generality Lands. john k (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Seems good. I'd only delete the dates on the left side. Mijnnaamgaatunietaan (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: "...it was a surprise to many that a nation not based on the church or on a single royal leader could be so successful."
It's not true. The United provinces were actually based on the Reformed Church(even if not de iure). This same article mentiones it in the Religion section. A country where state officials were required to be Reformed(Calvinist) and only the dominant Church was allowed to hold public services can by no means be considered secular. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Republic#Religion
--188.112.70.165 (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic perspective - Religion 

message: >Charles was succeeded by his son, King Philip II of Spain.
This sentence covers too much ground. So Burgundy became part of the Spanish Empire, I think I get that, but the situation should be stated more clearly. Did all of the Holy Roman German Empire fall to Spain? Or just Burgundy?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.86.185 (talk) 11:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Just Burgundy. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh? 

message: The upper bar of the flag should be orange instead of red.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.144.66.75 (talk) 14:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of the Dutch Republic 

message: Should there be a mention of the influential philosophers from that time in the Dutch provinces in the introduction segment, such as Spinoza and Descartes?
Fsikkema (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There could be, but only if a new section is added to the body of the article. The new section could be called Philosophy, or maybe "Secular Thought" or "Non-Religious Thought" or maybe even "Philosophical Thinking." When such a new section is added to the body of the article, regarding Descartes and the Spinoza circle in The Hague, and if such new section has good/reliable sources/refs, then a brief mention can maybe also be added to the lead. But the lead mention will depend on what the new section that is added says, based on reliable sources. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:29, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible addition of philosophers in introduction text 

message: Why is there no mention of Belgica Foederata? It appears on most Guld Ducats minted in Utrecht and other places during the Dutch Republic. I see articles in other languages mention it up-front.
For people (like myself) who want to understand Dutch history, it would be useful to include this.
--'wɪnd (talk) 13:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have good, academic, reliable sources mentioning the issue and explaining it, by all means, go ahead and add information that uses/points to these reliable sources. I'd also be interested in having it explained. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 16:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Belgica Foederata omitted?