Talk:Battle of Nieuwpoort

Casualties
There seems to be a lot of doubt concerning spanish casualties. Might I ask how the number 2500 came to be? Wikipedia pages of this topic in other languages seem to state this was 3000, which is supported with sources.84.84.50.147 (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent rewrite & Dutch or Anglo-Dutch?
The article is currently being extensively rewritten on the basis of a single recent book that argues that this was the "pivotal" battle of 1568–1648, despite it being a strategic stalemate. The idea seems to be that because the source is recent it is "up to date", but it is still just one source that has to be set against established historical consensus. This is quite apart from issues of detail, such as using "Dutch parliament" for the States General of the United Provinces, or the more general one-sidedly Dutch tone (this is supposed to be an international encyclopedia, not a rousing bout of "vaderlandsche geschiedenis"). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, and there shouldn't be any need to remove citations and sources. I should also point out that this is about the battle itself and not the entire campaign which could be used as basis for en entirely new article. The campaign has already been described in the background and shouldn't need to be expanded any further. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Re-writer writing:
 * a) I agree that we can change this into several articles, one about the campaign, and several for the battles and sieges. That claim can also be made about the original text though which is why I went that same way, just expanded a bit.
 * b) We can use other words for "Dutch parliament", but parliament was and is the word to decribe a 'legislative body of government', which is exactly what it was ... so why the problem?
 * c) The one-sidedly Dutch tone I don't see in the rewrite, perhaps Andreas can explain? For example, the older text claims that this was an allied victory and that England and Scotland were involved. Both statements are untrue (yet have been put back). It was a Dutch army fighting a Spanish army. All units in both armies were paid for, commanded by, and had sworn loyalty to those two countries. It this is about including all nationalities involved, then the list will be quite long, for both countries, as it will be for any army of this period. So I propose to remove those mentions of allied, England and Scotland ... (plus that mention of 'during the Anglo-Spanish war', it might make sense if an English army or brigade was involved, but it wasn't, so it doesn't make sense). Btw, 'de Groot' is referred to as a source for calling it an allied victory, but nowhere in the book does the author claim that. On the contrary, he specifically mentions it was a Dutch army.
 * d) If one reads the contemporary sources and recent reconstructions, one will find that that latest study really is the most accurate. Unlike the others, it does manage to fit every detail of every eye witness account to an actual event. The other recent reconstructions bypass many accounts by ignoring them (although I suppose they simply haven't read them, so it's more ignorance than purposfully ignoring). On top of that, the old version of this article also seems to follow just a single modern reconstruction. The real problem with that one is that its description of the battle, including the orbat, is completely wrong: it doesn't fit contemporary sources at all and it doesn't fit any of the many other modern reconstructions.
 * e) Similarly about the numbers mentioned in the info box. That latest study has counted up the numbers mentioned by the actual governments involved at the time. Reading other reconstructions on the other hand, you will see a lot of (often wild) guestimates. And again, the numbers of that latest study all fit what happened back then (also the operations in the weeks after the battle), whereas those guestimates don't even come close (leading to lots of head scratching and having to explain - or more often simply not mention - problems arising from it). So here too I propose to put those numbers of that latest study back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are several problems with all of this, not least the circular logic that the recent book is best because it is more accurate than any of the others. Which tertiary source tells us that this secondary source is the most accurate? Or are we taking the book's own claim about itself at face value? --Andreas Philopater (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Re-writer writing: Well, that in itself is circular logic of course, because:
 * First, the old text also doesn't explain anywhere why it says what it says; which it really should, because it deviates - not a little but a lot - from all recent and not so recent book-published reconstructions.
 * Second, since when does Wikipedia need quoted tertiary sources to say the quoted secondary sources are correct ... and where would that stop, with the 100th source? And why does the rewrite require those, but not the older - and incorrect - text? (Btw, you could take that recent source's in depth and very positive reviews online as that affirmative tertiary source).
 * And third, yes we can take that most recent published source at face value:
 * - see my earlier comment;
 * - it has gone unchallenged;
 * - it is from a reputable publisher;
 * - it has been very well sourced;
 * - the author is even available online (www.80yw.org, as mentioned in the book) to discuss and share the bibliography he has used (500+ titles IIRC, including 100s of old sources with link where to find them online);
 * - and - most importantly - because the sources used for the older text also have very clearly been used at face value.
 * So again, why have issues here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 06:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You're still basing this on one source. Wikipedia is reliant on many sources as long as they are reliable. It could be argued that De Groot is flawed & on this we can't just rely on his views.


 * In regards to the result this was an allied victory due to the presence of English and Scots, (should mention the numbers including Frenchman and Germans too). Failing to mention them like De Groot has is blatantly ignorant.


 * England was at war with Spain and worked with the Dutch army and navy in pursuit of an independent Republic which they helped succeed in especially by 1597. The Scots, though they weren't at war but were protestant allies, operated in their own regiments. In addition English troops were recruited, wore red cassocks & were also formed into regiments (or ensigns) and had their respective colours. To be more specific England renewed a treaty with the States in 1595 - and her army was to be paid for by the States, but the Queen would also be repaid on the Crowns expenses in instalments until a conclusion of peace was made. As such they were techincally not mercenaries - a comparison could be like the Portuguese fighting with the British in Peninsula war. Only after the treaty of London of 1604 were the English classed as 'volunteers' within the State's army.


 * As for the numbers 'the latest studies' can not be relied upon with just one source. With this there needs to be a consesus which can be introduced on this talk page. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Re-writer writing: Why not base this on one source that has extensively researched all others, old and new? That alone means that its conclusions are a whole lot more than mere views. How can we beat that with the few minutes we spend on the topic?
 * For example you offhandedly say that the numbers in that latest source cannot be relied upon and ‘with this there needs to be a consensus’ (btw why, since when is science a democratic thing?): if we think his numbers are wrong, then we should at least come up with numbers that are even better supported by primary sources ... so where is that proof for the numbers currently mentioned in the old version of the article?


 * If you think it could be argued that De Groot is flawed, then please do. You call him ‘blatantly ignorant’ for not mentioning English, Scottish, German and French troops … but he does: in the Orbat each unit is listed with its nationality (p37, same with the Spanish orbat). Before that (p27) he explains that in 1599 all troops fighting for Holland but in foreign service (like the English and French) were taken on in Dutch service (as I’ve mentioned earlier: paid for, equipped by, sworn to; also see note 6 in article). From then on they were part of the Dutch army, not mercenaries, foreign allies, or whatever. So the viewpoint that English and Scottish troops were ‘allies’ and this was an ‘allied’ victory is clearly wrong, as De Groot shows, with facts, not opinions (this can actually be verified online from the Dutch state papers from those years). It also means that texts that mention otherwise are wrong, which sheds doubt on their reconstructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * When you say that sources differ and this is the best one, you need to bring some support for the claim (such as a review by an independent expert saying that). Otherwise we should just set out what the various sources say rather than engage in original research or our own synthesis to arrive at a single version when the sources give multiple versions. I'm not suggesting the article can't be improved on, but it would be good to see some explicit discussion of just what should be changed and why, rather than fanning an incipient edit war. Nobody is served by turning the page into a battleground. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Re-writer writing: It would be nice if we can find a ‘review by an independent expert saying that’ De Groot is the best source. I doubt however that there will ever be a consensus here on how independent or expert that person is. More to the point: no such reviews can be found of any of the other sources used in the old article, so why the sudden need now? Thus we revert to what we really should do: look at the most recent and most extensive study on the topic, with the most (primary) sources ... that is De Groot, whether we like it or not. Then if we want to deviate from that, we should argue how and why, with appropriate proof, which there isn’t.


 * Your suggestion to ‘set out what the various sources say [...] to arrive at a single version’ means we will be averaging all available sources to create some kind of Frankenstory on our own. That is useless. It would include all the completely wrong reconstructions, so will always be a very, very poor reconstruction.


 * But yes, we can first discuss what to change:
 * 1- the things mentioned above, ‘allies’ and
 * 2- numbers
 * 3- the description of the battle: it is completely different from anything written in primary sources and in recent studies, plus contains unsupported opinions like “the best regiments, Scottish and English veterans”.
 * 4- likewise the orbat is wrong (and without a source)
 * 5- ‘early deployment’ is completely wrong (and without source)
 * 6- the amphibious operation deserves more detail: it remained the biggest successful amphibious invasion for many years
 * 7- the battle at Leffinghen bridge is describe incorrectly; it might even deserve its own page
 * 8- I’d spend more effort on explaining Maurice’s reforms and their importance
 * 9- References only list one primary source (Vere), one contemporary source (Commelin) and one recent in-depth study (Groot). All the others only mention the battle in passing and cannot be seriously considered, especially as there are so many others that aren’t mentioned.
 * Agreed on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed that the article needs more sources. The battle at Leffingham bridge does deserve its own page and as mentioned perhaps the entire campaign which some have concluded until Ostend is besieged is inconclusive. There isnt really much disucssion regarding the allies because that is a fact, they were. We can change it to Anglo-Dutch victory which is cited as such; twice. There is no problem using De Groot as a source as mentioned, but we just can't rely on him otherwise we'd have to use the One Source template which let me quote from it. ''is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved.'


 * As for the article the layout should be Background sub section with 'campaign' then Battle, Aftermath with a sub section 'Maurice's tactics'. Background should be equal to or less than the Battle otherwise there should be separate articles which can be linked to. Hope this helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * It's great that you want to improve the article (it needs improvement), but not great that an edit war was starting to develop. Discussion is the way to keep that from happening. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Rewriter writes:

Hi Eastfarthingan, it is frustrating to try to discuss a matter if you keep repeating the same argument, while ignoring the proof against it. But I’ll try one final time:

You say "We can change it to Anglo-Dutch victory which is cited as such; twice."

It should be changed to Dutch. It has been explained above why. It has been cited many times more than twice as such. Besides, you claim De Groot is one of those two cited, but nowhere in his book does he say it was an allied victory (I just checked), so that brings it down to a single citation, and that in a ‘mention’ (see below), i.e. not even a proper secondary source. Keeping the claim it was an allied victory is therefore biased, exactly the thing you claim to want to guard against.

You say "There is no problem using De Groot as a source as mentioned, but we just can't rely on him otherwise we'd have to use the One Source template which let me quote from it. is usually less than ideal, because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved."

Of course that argument is valid for practically every source. However, the references (so far) only list one primary source (Vere), two secondary sources (Commelin and De Groot), and many ‘mentions’ (a few pages at best as part of a publication about something else). The mentions can be ignored, they rely on the author’s interpretation of a handful of secondary sources with zero study of relevant primary sources (also, with so many real secondary sources available, these mentions really shouldn’t even be listed). Vere has been incorporated by De Groot, as have ALL other primary sources currently known and available (something no other secondary source can claim). Commelin, although almost 400 years old, is great, but only had a fraction of those primary sources to draw from. I.e. dismissing De Groot - the latest, biggest, and most comprehensive study on this battle - because it IS the latest, that is the exact opposite of trying to improve the reliability of this encyclopedia.

For example, you changed the intro back to include “an army of the Dutch Republic and its protestant allies of England and Scotland, under the commands of Maurice of Nassau and Francis Vere respectively.” It has already been explained this was a Dutch army, without allied contingents. Vere was one of the commanders serving under Maurice, and certainly not commander of the Scottish regiment. These are not opinions, but matters of record, plain and simple. Saying anything else is distorting the facts, and - again - biased, the thing you claim to want to guard against. So, why the edit?

Just to give you one more example: within days of the battle, the dead on the actual battlefield were officially counted. The number of Spanish bodies on the field was 4,028 ((i.e. not counting those killed during the pursuit). This is a matter of record, it can be checked online in Dutch government archives of the time. De Groot mentions it as do some other secondary sources. So the number of men from the Spanish army that died on the spot, there and then, is more than 4,000. Yet you changed the number in the info box back to ‘2,500 dead or wounded’. Why? It cannot be justified, proven or even reasoned, it just isn’t true. The same can be said and shown about all other numbers in the info box. Why the bias?

Btw De Groot disqualifies plenty of mentions (and quite a few secondary sources) with actual proof, certainly all texts that support the current Frankenstory this article is now, with the weird and wrong battle description, orbat and deployment. So according to your own definition, those parts must now be deleted, or – as you seem to prefer – averaged out to another Frankenstory.

You say "Hope this helps."

Not at all. Because the changes will be removed anyway, I won’t spend more time on this article. Besides, De Groot's 'Nieuwpoort 1600, the first modern battle' is readily available and his 500+ title bibliography, with links to many primary sources, can be accessed on www.80yw.com. Visitors who want to know how the battle went down are advised to read that book and/or check out those links.

As a final remark, I find it quite disturbing to dismiss recent in-depth studies simply because they ARE recent and don’t repeat what a few paragraphs in off topic titles mention. That is not the way science works. But is it how Wikipedia now works? We will then end up with a horrendous collection of Frankenstories, utterly useless and completely wrong. It will reduce the value of Wikipedia to zero. Such a shame! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 16:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way but that's how wikipedia works. No one is dismissing anything regarding using De Groot. That isn’t the issue, but we have already established that this article cannot be relied on with just one source. Also I make a point that the article hasn't cited De Groot; it has citations only you have made. As for the Dutch victory - you're wrong. The battle was an event that should not be looked at in a Dutch perspective but from a more neutral pov. Therefore this was an allied victory as I have stated the English were not fighting as mercenaries and they certainly were not dressed in Dutch style attire and they put in their own regiments. The only way they were ‘Dutch’ was that they were trained in the Dutch method of fighting. As I have already said and I’ll keep repeating this, was that when the peace of 1604 had been passed this ended official English involvement - but then they became volunteers or mercenaries.


 * It doesn't make any difference because it IS the latest however it could be inputted as a historical analysis sub section in the aftermath. Like I said before, we can gain a consensus on the sources and how much we can use De Groot. If that's any consolation to you? regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter writes (I know, but one more time?)


 * Yes, clearly this is how Wikipedia works: you keep putting back your own unproven and wrong theory, until people give up. Unfortunately that is not how Wikipedia SHOULD work.


 * In your case you keep clamouring this was an allied instead of a Dutch victory (I couldn’t care less who won, but do aim for factual correctness). However, not a single serious study claims it was ‘an allied victory’, because it simply isn’t true, as official English and Dutch records of the time show (as pointed out above). Yet you keep editing it back, this conclusion of your own research (thus violating Wiki’s rules btw). Of the two sources you bring up to support it, one (De Groot) doesn’t anywhere say anything remotely like it (it actually contradicts it, as stated earlier) and the other hardly looks at the battle and certainly can’t be considered a serious secondary source.
 * Likewise, again despite proof against your edit, you put back the incorrect number of Spanish dead (as pointed out above).


 * And that is what I mean: to come anywhere near a proper article, too much time needs to be wasted on people who keep editing in their own preferred version, which - like your version – invariable is unsupported by any evidence or serious studies, AND violates ‘good faith’, the need for multiple sources, the desire for objectivity, and other Wiki rules. Yet when that uncorroborated and usually biased version is corrected, the time wasters remove it by saintly quoting the same rules they themselves so blatantly ignores!


 * The result? A worthless Wiki.
 * The consequence? Fewer and fewer donors and users, until Wikipedia peters out as another failed internet experiment. Mission accomplished?
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I have chosen allied victory as it best suits the result so this is factual correctness. It has been cited already I have shown that three sources have put it down to an 'Anglo-Dutch victory'. You say 'I couldn’t care less who won, but do aim for factual correctness' - well this is the point. As for De Groot I have removed him from the fray as yes you are correct he doesn't state an allied victory. More sources have been added and more will be so I don't see your point there especially if your just sticking with one source. As for the casualties I will add some detail shortly on this as there seems to be some discrepancies between each source. Again sorry for your frustration.  Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter tries another last time (I know, it’s hard to say goodbye):


 * It’s great you are so eager to try to create a story. But you keep falling for the temptation to present your own research and opinion, which isn’t what Wikipedia used to be about. By construing a story based on many and often conflicting secondary sources, you are creating a Frankenstory, relying on details from sources of vastly different quality and scope. You take it one step further down that slippery slope by carefully picking only those details that fit your preferred storyline, from very questionable ‘sources’.


 * For example you say "I have chosen allied victory as it best suits the result so this is factual correctness. It has been cited already I have shown that three sources".
 * It doesn’t ‘best suits the result’ at all: it was a Dutch army fighting a Spanish war, in a Dutch-Spanish war: so it cannot BE an ‘allied’ victory. Only magic can transform the ‘allied’ claim in to ‘factual correctness’ . The three sources you mention aren’t studies of the battle. None of the studies of the battle of the past 400 years use the term ‘allied victory’. I.e. it is your own, biased, and incorrect label.


 * For example, you’ve recently even edited the Dutch fleet to be Anglo-Dutch, based on ... 
 * Yes, on what? Not on any information from primary sources or proper studies, because those say, show and prove you are wrong. You insist however, so you must have a list ready of the ships in English service that participated: that really deserves a quote in a footnote, so we can all see why we should disregard all those in-depth studies by proper historians who’ve looked at all available primary sources to come to another conclusion.


 * Let’s see: you have recent and very detailed studies available: on-topic studies that have sifted through all available primary sources; studies that build on earlier studies, thanks to more and more primary sources becoming available online. Yet you believe, you think, that those must be wrong, simply because some article, some mention of this battle, in some book or magazine about a completely different subject, says something contradicting those (without the proof to back it up), and that therefore those very extensive on-topic published studies must be wrong.


 * On top of that, you keep deleting other people’s input, claiming things like it needs a source, is irrelevant, or even that it is a false POV, where a real editor would instead only add a comment to that effect to the main text, allowing others to improve or correct the issue. Yet at the same time, you keep adding stuff that is either wrong or your own conclusion, usually also without adding a source. That points to you not really wanting to create THE story at all, but only YOUR story. Very unwiki indeed.


 * For example, that ‘false POV’ you delete you don’t even identify or prove, yet you re-enter your own POV that only Spanish and English troops were veteran, and even talk about ‘British’ troops.


 * Anyway, it seems you will persevere with your version of what Nieuwpoort 1600 certainly wasn’t. What-if-histories like yours are popular in some circles, true, so you are bound to find some fans; everyone else who wants to know what really was what can luckily read a book dedicated to Nieuwpoort 1600. In the end, only Wikipedia will lose from this, so I'm not frustrated, just sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * This not a forum - and certainly this -’ Dutch army fighting a Spanish war, in a Dutch-Spanish war: so it cannot BE an ‘allied’ victory. ’ dosen’t belong on Wiki. Your own POV is hypocritical to what you’re saying. As I have said before England was fighting a war against Spain too since 1585 as Elizabeth supported the Dutch in their fight against Spain - ‘Cautionary towns’ such as Brill were handed over and became English territory. England was fighting on many fronts in that war, Ireland, the seas, France as well as Holland. At the forefront of the latter was Francis Vere having fought under Maurice from 1587 to 1602; the English were at the forefront of the Dutch success when the barrier towns were taken by 1597. By comparison the Dutch have been included in the Spanish armada article as vice versa they too were allied with England.


 * I have expanded the article which is what is needed. I have quoted from sources as wiki clearly dictates to do, where as you are just using ONE source and your own opinion. THAT dosen’t belong on wiki. Wikipedia also requires a consensus to bring other opinions together so what I have done is by the book. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter responds:


 * You say “Wikipedia also requires a consensus to bring other opinions together so what I have done is by the book.”
 * No it’s not, what you have done isn't by the book at all. Consensus means a position reached by a group as a whole, whereas you keep deleting anything that doesn’t fit your version of this story. And since when is Wiki about opinions??
 * Btw, how arrogant can you be to think that you can somehow distil the ‘one and true’ version by mixing details from very well researched studies by serious scholars with flimsy unresearched mentions in unrelated articles. You pick whatever fits your agenda, add superficial articles as ‘proof’, and ignore the plethora of primary sources available online (I’ve even pointed you to where to get them, see earlier). You really think those scholars spending all those months on their studies were just fooling around and missed what amateur-you ‘discovered’ in 5 minutes of browsing some trivial articles?


 * You say “certainly this -’ Dutch army fighting a Spanish war, in a Dutch-Spanish war: so it cannot BE an ‘allied’ victory. ’ dosen’t belong on Wiki. Your own POV is hypocritical to what you’re saying. As I have said before England was fighting a war against Spain too”
 * I’m not pushing ‘my POV’, I’m merely repeating what all official reports from back then say, as well as every serious study about the battle since, all of which you so readily ignore to advance the idea that somehow this victory was part English. Yes, England was at war with Spain, and so was practically half of Europe, so what? Or do you want to call this a Dutch-English-French-Ottoman-Jointheclub victory?
 * Joke aside, I’ll try to explain, again: all foreign units and foreign commanders in the army were put on the Dutch pay roll, under Dutch command and vowing loyalty to the Dutch Republic in 1599. This is a matter of record, you can even look it up online in Dutch government archives (and btw, those cities were collateral for earlier loans, another matter entirely).


 * You can keep screaming you’re right and keep deleting anything that doesn’t comply with your story, but you cannot cite any primary source or serious secondary source that agrees with your opinion that Nieuwpoort 1600 was an ‘allied victory’. As you yourself say, Wikipedia is about consensus, and in this case, among historians and scholars, that is: a Dutch victory in a Dutch-Spanish battle in a Dutch-Spanish war. Claiming anything else is ‘own research’, ‘opinion’, and lacking consensus: i.e. not for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 13:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am happy to include any details that need to be added, as I have already said the only expansion this article needs is that battle section. So feel free to add any of De Groot in there. As for the Ottoman and French they were not involved in that fight. Only the English and Dutch so there would be no Dutch-English-French-Ottoman-Jointheclub victory. I don’t understand your ‘’all foreign units and foreign commanders in the army were put on the Dutch pay roll, under Dutch command and vowing loyalty to the Dutch Republic in 1599.’’ Where did you get this source ?- this is wrong as I have already explained. You’re using you're own POV and it’s sticking out like a sore thumb - they were only on the Dutch pay role as a result of a treaty signed in August 1598 - they were not under Dutch command (except for Maurice) and that Vere was still in command of English forces, who was still answerable to Queen Liz. This is explained in full ‘Britain and the Dutch Revolt, 1560-1700’ By Hugh Dunthorne on page 65, ‘The Oxford Handbook of the Age of Shakespeare’ by R M Smuts on page 96, ‘Queen Elizabeth and the Revolt of the Netherlands’ by C. Wilson. ‘Elizabeth I: War and Politics, 1588-1603’ By W. T. MacCaffrey.p. 288 - Not once in the treaty is there any mention of the English being under Dutch command or vowing any loyalty to them. As you’ve said.. ‘’I’m merely repeating what all official reports from back then say, as well as every serious study about the battle since’’ which clearly dictates everything coming from your POV. So that is the end of that. This discussion is over. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter replies:


 * I’ve managed to track down three of your sources on calling the army ‘Anglo-Dutch’. Interestingly, they all say the opposite of what you claim regarding that 1598 treaty and the army: they speak of a Dutch army, a Dutch effort, England and the Dutch Republic no longer being allies, and England only being a supplier of manpower. The clearest quotes from the three:


 * Britain and the Dutch Revolt, 1560-1700’ By Hugh Dunthorne on page 65:
 * About the 1598 treaty: the distinction previously made between states companies and companies of the queen’s army should be abandoned. From now on all forces fighting for the States General were to be in Dutch pay


 * Queen Elizabeth and the Revolt of the Netherlands’ by C. Wilson
 * On p 120 the 1598 treaty is described thus: The new Anglo-Dutch arrangements [...] left it open for the former allies to go on providing troops for the Dutch - so long as the Dutch paid. [...] Vere and his brother continued to command for Maurice.


 * Elizabeth I: War and Politics, 1588-1603’ By W. T. MacCaffrey, but p. 289
 * The agreement with the States shifted that relationship in lower gear in which England became little more than a supplier of manpower to the Dutch military effort.
 * And btw, this is in the chapter appropriately called From Alliance to Collaboration.


 * So even your own sources call the Nieuwpoort army a Dutch army. Time to edit the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Rewriter writes: Two things are going on here: (1) Who commanded the two English regiments? Answer: The Dutch Republic. (2) Can the Dutch army be called an Anglo-Dutch army? Answer: no.

'''(1) Who commanded the two English regiments? The Dutch Republic.'''

Actually, many of the English troops under that 1598 treaty ended up being ferried from Holland to Ireland in 1599. Interestingly, that same treaty states that Vere would switch from English to Dutch service on 6 October 1598 (see e.g. primary Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 71, 150; secondary Raa, Bas, Staatsche Leger, Vol. 2, 159; ), which he did.

Two English regiments - newly commissioned Francis and Horace de Vere - were put on the Dutch payroll and under Dutch command on 11 January 1599 (see e.g. primary Rijks Geschiedkundige Publicatiën 71, 590; secondary Raa, Bas, Staatsche Leger, Vol. 2, 159; Groot, Nieuwpoort 1600, 27; some of that paper work wasn’t finished until 1603, which may explain the confusion). The same happened that year with for example the French regiment.

Therefore, as you will notice, the genealogy of all these foreign regiments in the Dutch army starts in 1599: the year they officially became Dutch, and on paper a new unit (see e.g. secondary Groot, Dutch Armies of the 80 Years’ War, Vol. 1, 41).

Or to rephrase all of this in a single sentence: if in 1598 those regiments would have received an order from their respective kings, they’d HAVE to obey, but if in 1600, then NOT.

Some background: in the 1590s those troops in foreign pay on Dutch soil were a real problem for the Dutch government: e.g. troops from England and France (France isn’t mentioned in the pro-English-Dutch argument) served in Holland but remained paid for and under high command of their respective countries. Those kept demanding other uses of the troops than in the Netherlands. Up to the late 1590s the Dutch were happy enough with the arrangement, but as their economy grew stronger, they wanted to get rid of this dependency. Hence the nationalization of all foreign controlled regiments in 1599.

'''(2) Can the Dutch army be called an Anglo-Dutch army? No.'''

Apart from all of this: the only basis used here to call the Dutch army at Nieuwpoort ‘Dutch-English’, is that two regiments were English and the claim they were still serving their nation’s crown. The same can be said about the French and German regiments, and to a certain extent about the Scottish and Swiss regiments. Something similar was going on in the Spanish army. Btw, while the presence of foreign units in the army may confuse some in this way, no such confusion can exist about the fleet for Nieuwpoort 1600: that was Dutch, not ‘Anglo-Dutch’ (IIRC 95% of the ships in the fleet were of types not even used in England).

All of that doesn’t make the army an allied army of course, nor does it make the army’s command ‘allied’. Most armies back then, certainly those fighting abroad, had at least 1 unit paid for by a friendly royal, yet we don’t call those by their name either.

Besides, had this been a joint-command army, then where is the paper trail to show the English crown had any say in the decisions of the 1600 campaign? There is no such paper trail because it hadn’t.

Finally, for those who still want to incorrectly call it an Anglo-Dutch army, at least be consistent with the mistake and call it an Anglo-Dutch-French(-German-Scottish-Swiss) army, do the same with the Spanish side, and of course likewise change most other battles and landings of the period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Dutch army fighting a Spanish war, in a Dutch-Spanish war" even though they were invading another part of the Netherlands, ruled by an Austrian? Sounds a bit iffy. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Osprey are great, I have several of their books, but their intended readership is hobbyists and wargamers, not historians. It would be good to see something academic. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * One thing that is being overlooked here is the Anglo-Dutch treaty of 1598 which is the whole basis of the argument. This in itself is the reason for this actually being called an allied victory or an Anglo-Dutch victory.


 * 1.) Who commanded the two English regiments? Francis Vere


 * Francis Vere controlled the English regiments; he was classed as General of the Queen's Forces in the Low Countries,. This is all explained in the The Fighting Veres.: Lives of Sir Francis Vere, General of the Queen's Forces in the Low Countries,…etc by Clements Robert Markham in detail on pages 265-69. It explains in detail that English soldiers were still pressed into the army to fight - this all depending on the number needed.
 * To quote Smuts 'The Oxford Handbook of the Age of Shakespeare'; part of the 1598 treaty - Vere 'was authorised by both Queen and the States as General over all the English companies with full power over the English captains officers and soldiers in the States army.'
 * 2.) Can the Dutch army be called an Anglo-Dutch army? Yes
 * So a treaty has been made where both countries agree to a resolution of continuing the war as two allies, as an alliance.The English army was a standing army under authorisation by Elizabeth to fight the Spanish - therefore they are not mercenaries or auxiliaries. Therefore being in the States army doesn't mean a single entity that being in Dutch pay is irrelevant due to the treaty being forced. Like I said the Portuguese army in the Peninsula war which is of a similar comparison (except their officers were British). The only difference was the English switched to being volunteers after the 1604 peace treaty.
 * 3.) Can you call it a :'call it an Anglo-Dutch-French(-German-Scottish-Swiss) army'. No.
 * The French, Germans and Scots made no treaty with the Dutch as England had done as they were not at war and had no authorisation to send troops. In addition those same countries had no control of who went and turned a blind eye. Therefore they are completely different to that of the English. I might add that one of the clauses of the 1604 treaty with Spain was that English troops fighting with the Dutch would only end when take place once the siege of Ostend had ended. (page 200 - ‘Dynasty and Piety: Archduke Albert (1598-1621) and Habsburg Political Culture in an Age of Religious Wars’ - Luc Duerloo. Vere also had to resign his post because of the treaty.That didn't stop English troops fighting with the Dutch after the peace - they were classed as volunteers and as such mercenaries.
 * Do please explain 'There is no such paper trail because it hadn’t.'? there is no need for a paper trail at all. I think the best way to describe this is to go back to Anglo-Dutch victory and remove the Scots since they were not at war with Spain. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter responds:
 * So to recap your argument:
 * The army and thus the victory at Nieuwpoort should be called Anglo-Dutch, because the English soldiers and their commanders fighting there were part of the English army which was part of an Anglo-Dutch alliance.
 * However, the sources you bring up to prove your claim actually say the exact opposite: the English troops fighting in the Dutch army were Dutch paid, Dutch commanded, and the units were commissioned by the Dutch; there was no Anglo-Dutch alliance anymore and the English troops in Holland were specifically NOT part of the English army. This is what your sources say about that 1598 treaty: see above for citations.


 * What else do we know?
 * No primary source calls it an Anglo-Dutch army or victory and no serious secondary source does. Actually the only sources mentioning anything special about the English troops at Nieuwpoort are English sources (and their translations, most based on Francis Vere’s biased description).
 * It doesn’t matter that those English men needed English permission to be commissioned into the Dutch army (this was the case in most countries), or that Francis Vere left the Dutch army (to be succeeded by his brother Horace).


 * What should be the conclusion?
 * There is no consensus at all to add the Anglo-label to this Dutch army and victory, especially not if one reads the sources. To continue to do so in this article is bias, own research and general disregard of Wiki-rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 09:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * there was no Anglo-Dutch alliance anymore wrong check the 1598 treaty as I have mentioned and here it is in detail - 'European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States and Its Dependencies' by F. G. Davenport; pages 239-40, Anglo-Dutch alliance of 1585 should be confirmed.
 * There has been no consensus and you are using just one source to back up your argument - the sources I have provided have all said Anglo-Dutch. Scannell, Questier etc. You're using your own opinion to gain weight especially with your bias from De Groot (Francis Vere's biased description??). I'm not repeating my self over and over again. To continue to do so in this article is how it has always been with no issues. and the English troops in Holland were specifically NOT part of the English army. The English army were part of the English army in Holland, yes under Dutch pay and integrated in the Dutch army as par the treaty. The levy was still the same used for English forces fighting in Ireland at the same time.
 * Perhaps I should leave you with this Maurice on the English at Nieuwpoort noting the charge from the beach by Horace Vere's companies. The Expansion of Elizabethan England - A. Rowse page 410 - Voyez, voyez , les Anglais qui tournent à la charge !. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter replies:
 * See, this is what I don’t understand. You bring up far removed secondary sources to prove your point. Then I actually read those sources and find that they say the exact opposite of what you claim. Then you ignore all of that and come up with another distant source to continue your opinion. And so on.


 * Let’s break that cycle and go back to see what YOUR sources say about that treaty:
 * Your source Britain and the Dutch Revolt, 1560-1700 says: the distinction previously made between states companies and companies of the queen’ s army should be abandoned. From now on all forces fighting for the States General were to be in Dutch pay (see above). I.e. the English soldiers fighting in Holland are no longer considered to be part of the English army.
 * Your source Queen Elizabeth and the Revolt of the Netherlands very clearly says they weren’t allied any longer, calling them: the former allies (see above).
 * You indirectly quote Ogle, from Vere’s memoirs (Dillingham’s Commentaries). So let’s see what they have to say, Vere can be considered a primary source after all:
 * Vere uses the word English only to refer to the nationality of the regiments, usually in the same sentence or paragraph as he uses the word Frisians, referring to the other nationality in his command. He does so on pages 82, 89, 90, 101, 103 and 104.
 * Both Clement and Ogle only use the word English once, like Vere when referring to the regiment and like Vere, Ogle does so in the same sentence as he uses Frisians to refer to their regiment.
 * None of the three talk about an alliance or an allied or Anglo- army or victory. On p 114 Clement Edmonds even specifically calls it the army of the Netherlands.


 * Granted, you now bring up a new argument, I quote: to continue to do so in this article is how it has always been with no issues. So what you actually say here is: research can be ignored if it isn’t included in and doesn’t agree with the current article on Wikipedia. Wow. You do know that the list of sources for this article still is very, very short? Just 1 primary source and 2 proper secondary source studies. The rest are mentions in off-topic books. Whatever you may think about De Groot’s study, it does provide you with a huge list of useful and on-topic sources. But adding them would of course not be how it has always been, so I see your point: it’s better to ignore things that might risk having to rewrite the article.


 * I don’t know what to do with your “especially with your bias from De Groot”: which would that be, that I keep proving your bias wrong with your own proof?


 * And what is the reason to bring up that last citation by Maurice? How does that support your Anglo-Dutch opinion, besides even Ogle says it’s hearsay.


 * Finally, but again: there is no proof and no reason to call this Dutch army and this Dutch victory Anglo-Dutch. Primary sources and secondary source studies don’t. Mentions of this battle in off-topic studies you bring up to support the Anglo-label actually disprove it.
 * So, will you now delete the Anglo-label and replace allied with Dutch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The secondary sources are there to prove that the English fought and there was an alliance between the Anglo-Dutch - it now seems you want to erase any mention of the English from the article. Your true intentions have been shown. If the English were ‘Dutch’ then clearly the matter of the English presence was an issue during the Treaty of London in 1604.


 * I’ll leave others to decide the matter as repeating oneself over and over isn’t going to make the argument/discussion gain further clarity. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Rewriter replies:
 * Are you serious? My true intentions have been shown? I want to erase English participation? You just keep making things up, don’t you?


 * But for those readers tuning in just now:
 * There were three English regiments fighting at Nieuwpoort, two infantry and one cavalry (well, that cavalry was several squadrons, but together equal to a regiment). Two Englishmen even commanded one of the army’s wings, the brothers De Vere. Nobody denies these facts, least of all I, so why try to move the discussion in that direction with baseless accusations?


 * What the real topic is here, is if the army those Englishmen fought in was Dutch - as historians and witnesses say, or Anglo-Dutch - as you claim. Your only support for that claim is that there was a treaty. But as I showed from your own ‘proof’, that treaty specifically ended the previous alliance. Thus in 1600 the English fighting in the Dutch army did so not as an ally, but as soldiers in units commissioned, paid, equipped, and commanded by the Dutch Republic.
 * The men that did so (and their nation’s government) never said they were fighting in the English army then and never spoke about an Anglo-Dutch army or victory at Nieuwpoort. Even your own sources specifically say that by 1600 the alliance was over and the English troops in the Dutch army were no longer part of the English army.


 * Of course - and perhaps that is where your misunderstanding originates - those troops kept being referred to as ‘English’, just as the troops from France, Germany, Scotland, Switzerland and Wallonia fighting in the Dutch army were referred to by their nationality. B.t.w., in all cases they were just as often referred to by the name of their colonel or lieutenant-colonel.
 * Yes, at Nieuwpoort one of the wings was led by Englishmen, but the cavalry and the centre were commanded by German officers, and the other wing by a Dutchman. This just shows you that nationality didn’t mean anything special in the army (similar to most continental armies of the time).


 * And that is all I have been showing you: that calling the victorious army at Nieuwpoort ‘Anglo-Dutch’ is 100% wrong. It doesn’t agree with the facts of the time, not one primary source and not one serious secondary study uses that label. It was a Dutch army and a Dutch victory.
 * Unfortunately, you keep defending the Anglo-label and - worse - editing the article to include it. That flies in the face of all that Wikipedia says it’s about. So please don’t run away to leave us with your mess, but do the right thing and change your text. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.106.132.202 (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * There were three English regiments fighting at Nieuwpoort, two infantry and one cavalry (well, that cavalry was several squadrons, but together equal to a regiment). Two Englishmen even commanded one of the army’s wings, the brothers De Vere. But your previous actions deleting them from the infobox and wording regarding English in this discussion shows otherwise and seems to show that intent.


 * As you said - The treaty specifically ended the previous alliance. WRONG the alliance was renewed - don't mince words. To quote Davenport's 'European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States' p. 240 an offensive and defensive treaty of alliance was concluded at Westminster on August 6/16. Its principal provisions were as follows that the Anglo-Dutch treaty of alliance of 1585 should be confirmed with the exception of certain articles that the Queen should be represented in the Dutch council of State by one councillor instead of two that the States should repay the Queen’s advances in large instalments and should bear the charge of the English garrisons in the cautionary towns that the States should furnish military and naval aid to England against Spain The treaty is very important in regards to this discussion. Let's also look at 'The Society of Jesus in Ireland, Scotland, and England' By T M. McCoog; page 144 - England's renewal of the her alliance with the Dutch in August. Also - 'The Earl of Essex and Late Elizabethan Political Culture' By A. Gajda; page 98 After several months of negotiations Elizabeth renewed the Anglo-Dutch alliance on 6 August, the United Provinces conceding to shoulder most of the financial burden. As you can see the alliance was very much alive during the Battle of Nieuwpoort.


 * As a compromise I will be happy to restore 'Dutch or States victory' but leave the elements such as England being a combatant and in detail, their involvement in the article. Although I think it is best to see if other users can make any contribution to this argument. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ok, you are very happy about it but NO advantages from the battle, which was a minor thing. One of the main reasons was the Tercios was too tired to fight but ok, even Caesar lost some battles. Spain remained untouchble for 50 years more.

Son and brother?
In the article it says Albrecht was son and brother of Rudolf II.

That’s not true - he can’t have been both unless rudolf had another son with his mother which I can’t find anywhere. 47.184.0.18 (talk) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)