Talk:Dutch Revolt/Archive 1

Capitalization
I've decapitalized the nouns in the titles, see guideline Manual of Style (headings). Piet 19:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Dutch POV
The article is a bit too much written from a modern-Dutch point of view. "The Netherlands" before the war was a much larger area than the Dutch Republic or even the present-day Netherlands. Examples:
 * 1) "The Eighty Years' War, or Dutch Revolt, was the war of secession between the Netherlands and the Spanish king". When this links to "Netherlands", the modern-day country, this is not true. The revolt started in the whole Seventeen Provinces. I think we will have to make the distinction clear in the lead section and use different terminology throughout the article. For one, I would not use the word Dutch when talking of the Seventeen Provinces, only after the independence – although I'm not sure of this. I think before 1568, "Flemish" would have been the more common word even for the other provinces. The word "Netherlands" would better be replaced by either Seventeen Provinces, Northern or Southern provinces. I'm not sure if this will work, I'll give it a try one of these days.
 * 2) The faith of the southern provinces, which were not only the largest part of the Seventeen Provinces but also contained all the biggest cities, is largely ignored. Piet 20:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

There are some issues rightfully raised. But beware not take make it into a Flemish POV. I definitely agree with your remark that it is about all 17 provinces not only present day Nl. However the phrase the Netherlands (referring to that date) does include all provinces, while Flemish does definitely NOT include Holland, Utrecht, Gelre and Friesland. So I would stay with Netherlands - perhaps with a clarifying remark that it does not reflect today's country. Also your remark that the Flemish provinces. Furthermore the initial attempts were not a rebellion at all but petition for aleviation of the inquisition. Only after Egmond and Hoorne were decapitated and William of Orange fled, the rebellion started seriously. By then the Spanish were in force around Brussels. The main revolt (exepting some unsuccesful battles) was mainly focused around the Flemish and Hollandic cities (Antwerp, Delft, Alkmaar, Leiden, Naarden). Antwerp was captured, Naarden population killed after surrender, Alkmaar and Leiden survived prolongued sieges). I also doubt whether the Flemish and Northern France provinces were larger than the (now) Dutch ones. About large cities - I do not recall Brussels being involved (like Amsterdam), and do not recall the role of Atrecht (Arras), but I agree Antwerp was defintitely large. However other Flemish cities like Bruges and Ghent were already on the decline and no longer as important as some of the emerging Holland cities (Dordrecht, Delft, Leiden). So I do not agree with your statement here. I made some adjustments to your rewritten introduction to try to find a non-Dutch non-Flemsih POV. Arnoutf 21:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Regarding size and big cities: I think the 7 provinces were clearly less than half the territory, check the map for that. Including the generaliteitslanden it was probably more than half, especially with the area that was lost to France. I have a good source for the claim that Spain recaptured all the major cities in the Netherlands, I will only introduce sourced statements from now on. I am not unhappy with the article as it is, though it probably needs some sources. My main problem was that it was only presented as a war for Dutch independence. The account I read was written from a Spanish pov and much of it was missing from the article.
 * Regarding terminology: I will definitely not use Flemish to describe the whole area, that would be even more confusing, but I think it was not uncommon in those days. I do think in this article we have to find a way to distinguish between the larger Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. In 1568 the larger Netherlands were one entity, the Northern or Southern Netherlands were not. In 1648 we have the Southern Netherlands and the Dutch Republic. I don't think the word Dutch is used for the larger Netherlands before 1568, see for example Early Netherlandish painting (Discussion about title on talk page). It is not called Early Dutch painting. I once started an RfC about this (see Talk:Flanders (county)), but didn't get much response, so I still don't know how to proceed. The one reliable English source I read on this (which was an English book on Spain, so no Flemish or Dutch pov) uses "the Netherlands" for the area and "Flemish" as adjective before 1568, although it is not always clear whether Flemish refers to Flanders or the Netherlands. The book uses "Dutch" only for the Dutch republic and later. But again, I don't see "Flemish" as an option for this article, I just think we could reserve the word "Dutch" for the Northern Netherlands. Maybe Netherlandish could be an alternative for the period before 1568, but I'm not sure. We would need English language speakers to decide.
 * Regarding scope of the revolt: I'm not sure on this. I thought the reason the fighting was limited to the North was that the Spanish militarily controlled the South more firmly because that is were their troops were deployed (coming from Spain or the Burgundian lands). The fact that Bruges, Ghent, Brussels and Antwerp were on the rebel side seems to indicate the revolt was all over the Netherlands. Piet 07:49, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * If I may join in the discussion: Before 1568 (and for a long period after) terms like 'Dutch', 'Hollandic', 'Flemish' were used interchangably. Just look at the fact the the whole of the Seventeen provinces was sometimes referred to in Latin as 'Belgica'. Isn't just using 'The (Burgiundian) Netherlands' for the whole and 'Southern'or 'Spanish' Netherlands for the South and 'Northern Netherlands' or 'Republic' for the North clear enough?
 * The rebellion itself clearly started in the 'Southern' provinces of Flanders and Brabant. Ghent (which was, for a while, a Calvinist Republic between 1577 and 1584) and Antwerp were some of the most important locations of the early revolt. William of Orange actually resided in Antwerp (of which he was Margrave) at the start of the Revolt. It is also interesting to see how some places that were later so activly involved in the Revolt didn't join it until long after its start. The best known example is Amsterdam, that was loyal to Philip II and the Catholic faith until 1578(!) Another factor is the enormous amount of Refugees from the South to the North, especially after the Fall of Antwerp. It has been calculated that Antwerp had about 100.000 inhabitants in 1570, but only about 40.000 in 1590. The last attempt by the Republic to recapture Antwerp on the Spanish was actually even conducted in the 1630's. Main point is, that the early Revolt mainly took place in the South, but it was quite quickly exterminated by the Loyalist and Spanish forces. By 1572, the rebels had no foothold in the Netherlands. Only the capture of Den Briel on April 1 brought about some territorial gain, which happened to be in the North. This was however a sign for protestants all over the Low Countries to rebel once more. It was only after the most important Spanish victory, that over Antwerp in 1585, that it became more strictly a Northern affair; for a couple of reasons: Firstly, purely military: the North was far harder to conquer and far easier to defend because of its geography. Also, later on it was important for the Spanish to have their forces in the South, where they could not only respond to the Rebels, but also to the French. Another important reason would eventually come to the fore: the commercial one. As is probably known many Northern Merchants didn't want Antwerp commencing its commercial activities again, as that would seriously hamper the position of the Northern cities (especially Amsterdam). The people in the North who acually wanted the South to be conquered from the Spanish (mainly refugees rom the South and extremist Calvinist preachers who wanted to spread their faith to the South) were a minority in politics. Thomas Antonius 08:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good, we should add some of that to the article. I intend to work on it a bit, feel free to correct when I go wrong. I don't mean to push a certain point of view, I just felt the article did not reflect the Southern side of the story.
 * Something else: I will probably resection the article:
 * Background
 * Early revolt
 * Den Briel - 1609
 * Truce
 * Later stages
 * Treaty of Munster
 * Objections? Piet 09:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I always thought this article was messy. Let me know if I can help, I'm rather busy at the moment and so not always able to write large edits. Thomas Antonius 10:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds all very good; I tend to agree with most of your comments. I am not sure about geographical size, looks more or less 50-50 to me. I doubt whehter the Generaliteitslanden were counted among the Netherlands. I agree the military presence of the Spanish regent in Brussels may have contributed considerably to Spain maintaining its position, and being able to conquer the Flemish / Brabant cities. I think Breda was conquered about 5 times. Indeed Amsterdam was de facto a Catholig Freestate for a long time (profiting a lot by staying out of the war). The balance between the regents (wanting to stop war; not wanting to pay army upkeep - 12 year ceasefire) and the family of Orange (army leader, popular among the people) is another reason why the South was never reconquered. I think (most of the early) Orange(s) wanted to, but the merchants did not want to pay for the army to try so. Indeed the competition Amsterdam Antwerp may have played a role in not wanting to pay the army. So I think it might be more a financial reality than a political reason. Anyway. Lots of good comments which can really benefit the page. I'll try to have a closer look soon, and make sure to use referenced sources. Arnoutf 16:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Since the whole confusion seems to start from the use of the term "Netherlands" shouldn't we simply change all references from it to the Seventeen Provinces which do have their own article? User:Dimadick


 * We can do that as much as possible, but we cannot avoid the word completely. Because for the part that doesn't become independent, the common name is "Southern Netherlands" and I don't really see an alternative there. Consequently, we better avoid "the Netherlands" when speaking of the republic and instead consistently call it "Dutch Republic", because otherwise the Southern Netherlands are not a part of the Netherlands...

But I don't think there will be an easy rule: it's pretty clear what to use before and after the war, but during the war it's much more difficult, because of the continually changing positions. Piet 10:32, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think an important part of the problem here is that the early part of the Eighty Years' War is just as much a civil war as a Revolt, making both sides technically parts of the "Netherlands". Using "The Netherlands" for the whole and more specific terms for parts of it. So for example: "Northern Netherlands" vs. "Southern Netherlands", "Union of Utrecht" vs. "Union of Atrecht", "Dutch Republic" vs. "Spanish Netherlands", or 'provincial' distinctions might be appropriate at different moments. One could even use "rebels" and "loyalists", I think. Tom 10:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My History teacher used the phrase "the Low Countries (by the sea)" to refer to the Seventeen provinces before the Pragmatic Sanction, the Northern (and Southern) Netherlands during the Eighty Years' war. and the other appropriate names when needed. He also was the one, that told us, that during the war, the Northern Netherlands sold weaponry (cannons?) to the Spanish, quite lucratively. I don't know where to find a written source for that. Lokimaros 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know of both, however thank you for not adding without a source as some of these 'truisms' we learned may actually be only legends. If anyone has the source though.....Arnoutf 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah good one! Yes, it's true, and not just of guns, a typical illustration of the Dutch entrepeneurial spirit, why not profit from trading with the enemy, but I need to think about finding a reference for it. Its probably not covered by most of the sources I've got. Skeptic77 22:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding terminology: The Netherlands was an established name referring to the 17 provinces in general in the Burgundian/Habsburg era before the revolt, and should be treated as an equivalent to the Low Countries. Flemish/Dutch POV is a red herring: both terms are anachronistic in the sense intended. Dutch is just the English version of a reference to the language people speak (Duutsc, Diets, Deutsch, Dutch). It has wider application in the continental Germanic speaking area, and does not apply to French speaking inhabitants of the Netherlands: i.e. a visitor from Bremen or Cologne in Germany may be Dutch and one from Namur may be French for an Englishman in the 16th century. It was eventually narrowed down to refer to the Republic only in the 17th century, when the Republic dominated trade and encounters with other Germanic speaking people apparently became a rarity for the English. Since neither modern Dutchmen nor modern Dutch speaking Belgians identify themselves as Dutch (hence the oddness of Dutch POV), the word should ideally be avoided altogether, or used to refer to the Dutch speaking part of the population in general if that is useful. Its use in the article is at least often de facto accurate in the sense that in the 1579 phase the revolt was indeed largely a revolt of the Dutch-speaking provinces. Flemish in the sense of referring to Dutch speaking Belgium is also a modern invention: cities like Brussels and Antwerp are in 16th century Brabant and not in Flanders. Bruges and Ghent are in Flanders proper. Parts of old Flanders are in modern France and the Netherlands. It is true that in Southern Europe Dutch speaking merchants and products from the general Netherlands area were often referred to as Flemish (Fiamminghi; even ambassadors from the Republic have been identified that way in Italian sources), but this is merely a leftover of earlier domination of Flanders in the textile trade and was not very current anymore in NW Europe in the 16th century. In the Merovingian age all traders from continental NW Europe were referred to as Frisians, in the middle ages they all became Flemish, and later Dutch and from Holland (even then to the great irritation of the rest of the Netherlands). In the 16th century Brabant (now divided) was economically dominant among the 17 provinces. The modern use of Flemish (the major coastal province of Dutch speaking Belgium, and a synecdoche name for the whole Dutch speaking region) is analogous to the use of Holland (also major coastal province) to refer to the modern Netherlands. In a discussion of the 16th century, Flanders and Holland should strictly refer to the respective provinces. The modern Kingdom of the Netherlands, also formerly styled Kingdom of the United Netherlands, was founded in 1815 and at that point in time included modern Belgium: only after the secession of modern Belgium in 1831 the Netherlands came to refer to the northern part only. It was hardly ever used in that sense before 1831. Note also that in previous centuries Belgium/Belgica/Belgique etc. was used as a synonym of the Netherlands derived from the name of a former Roman province. It was mostly used by the French, and authors writing in scholarly Latin (cf. for instance the Atlas Maior which was produced in the province of Holland, but calls the whole of the Netherlands Belgica). Belgium came to refer to the south (which notably contains the whole French-speaking population) exclusively after 1831. Most accurate for the article in my view is Netherlands for the whole, and the United Provinces vs. the Loyal or King's Provinces during the messy stage of the revolt, the Republic (of the Seven United Netherlands) for the polity that was its major result, and the King's Netherlands for the remainder (to use a then current appelation, and avoiding the rebel's POV Spanish Netherlands). For the population of the 16th century Netherlands English simply doesn't have a suitable word that includes the French-speaking population as far as I know. It is by the way worth remembering that a major part of French-speaking Belgium, the Bishopric of Liège, did not belong to the Netherlands in those days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.192.124 (talk) 15:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the naming was not the largest problem. The non neutral tendency of the article was much along the lines of: Spanish/King's people BAAAAD, Dutch rebels GOOOOD. Arnoutf (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Major rewrite
Well, I started to restructure and rewrite this article but it is too big a task. I've created a test page so I can ask a few questions before proceeding and so maybe other people can help. Remarks / questions: All help is welcome. Piet 19:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Is the structure more or less okay? A few of the titles will still be changed of course, and some of the sections need to be expanded. But the general idea is there.
 * 2) Twelve Years' Truce - what territory was under Dutch control at this moment? Just the Seven Provinces? That's important information.
 * 3) Under Maurice's leadership, the whole north-eastern part of the present day Netherlands was captured by the United Provinces.  Can this be expressed in terms of Provinces for clarity? Is this the northern parts of Brabant and Limbourg?
 * 4) I removed though Dutch attacks on Spain's vital shipping had already been undermining that position after the war's resumption. - The reasons for the end of Spanish hegemony at sea were more complex.
 * 5) I removed The presence of the English, who were to stay until 1604, was a major reason for sending the Spanish Armada against England in 1588. If that is so, why was the armada not sent to the Netherlands? I think the Armada was sent to defeat England, full stop. Anyway, this is not related to the Eighty Years' War.

An ambitious project but I think the page will benefit. With regard to your questions: Another issue that might be a good idea is to think about including and expanding the 80 year war 'campaign' box Template:Campaignbox Eighty Years' War to include the list of battles; more a layout than a content thing though. I hope I can make some time to do some edits because I am becoming pretty enthousiastic about contributing. Arnoutf 21:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) In general I like your proposed structure, but would place the 'nature of the war' section somewhere else than in the complete back. Also the 'initial stage' at the moment is a bit like an introduction of the main players, but that might change.
 * I didn't see where to put that section in the text. I was thinking to make some sort of general assessment of the war at the end, (of which "Nature of the war" could be a subsection). We could also note the significance of the war for the modern states in the region, and for the Spanish empire. Piet 08:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Twelve years truce is a good point. I think at that stage it was more about controlling cities than a classical frontline. A topic in the 12 yr truce should be the internal struggles on the Dutch side (decapitation van Oldenbarneveld / Dordts Concilie).
 * I've added a short section on this, most of it from nl:Tachtigjarige Oorlog – which contains a lot of information! But I don't know much of this period so the wording may not be accurate. Especially I am not sure if I can say that the Gomarists were more radical than the Arminianists. Maybe there's a better way to explain the positions. Please fix if needed. Piet 08:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Good idea to clarify the campaigns by Maurice, I would have a look into the campaigns of Frederik Hendrik in a similar way.
 * 2) The attacks on vital shipping sounds like the buccaneering in the pacific (e.g. Piet Heyn), becasue there was hardly any northern spanish shipping route. I think the whole shift in power in the world theatre from Spain to England. Perhaps the English support to the Dutch provinces was used as a diplomatic excuse to attack the English but does not seem the main reason. I agree these issues are complicated and should be treated with the utmost care.
 * Issues like this can be in the article, but in a general section where they can be treated with more subtlety. The remarks I removed gave the impression that the Netherlands destroyed the Spanish Empire, which is a bit of an exaggeration. The 80 Years' War had a very big impact on the Spanish Empire, but only because of the combination with all the other wars Spain was fighting. Piet 08:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Still a lot of work, but I don't want to keep this as a separate test page for too long. I think I will do a major copy-edit on saturday, and then move the test article here. Unless someone plans to make a significant contribution first and wants me to wait. Anyway, changes can still be made afterwards of course, I only want to make it decent enough to have in the encyclopedia. I have no illusions of being able to make this article very good on my own. I mostly wanted a structure that makes it easier to expand and maintain afterwards. Piet 09:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Added short section (may need some editing) about political implications in Europe, linking in to Acte der Verlaetinge overthrowing Kings divine right. Arnoutf 10:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Put up a campaign box for the battle overview; how do you think about it. For now I left the battles there as they were for comparison; of course, one of the two has to go. Arnoutf 10:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Very good, can be put on all the battle pages as well. Piet 13:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
When someone has a bit of spare time, please check the capitalization in this article: I'm not sure if or when to capitalize words like "north" and "south", "northern" and "southern", "calvinist" and "protestant". Piet 10:39, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Major rewrite copied here
I've copied the test page here and redirected. Not because it is completely finished but mainly because further changes to the test page will otherwise not be reflected in this page's history. To do list: I'm not sure if I will do much more, I have a few other things on my list. But I think the article has great potential. Piet 11:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * copyedit by you (yes, you) for errors / clarifications
 * sources
 * a few more pictures. Shouldn't be too difficult, for example from the Dutch article or from related articles. I would also prefer a good picture at the top of the article instead of the template (the template would be below it then).
 * the template - replace by ?
 * a few more categories: History of Spain or something
 * capitalization (see above)
 * linking: guideline is that everything is linked the first time it is mentioned in the article. At the moment too many things are linked several times. No big problem of course, but it could be cleaned up.


 * I agree with Piet on his to do list, I will try to make some time for some of it. Did some copyediting today, but feel free to go on.
 * I also agree that the article has great potential after this major overhaul, perhaps we might try to align it with the What is a featured article? criteria, so it can be nominated... Arnoutf 15:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We might consider putting this one on top WikiProject Military history/Military conflict infobox Arnoutf 16:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some more copyediting and added some images; feel free to amend, or replace for better. Arnoutf 19:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've strikethrough'ed some of the things you've addressed. If you want to go on and make this qualify as a good or even featured article, the main thing will be more references, preferably in the text. Something else that would make this article great are more maps to show the changing positions at certain key points. For example the campaign of Maurice, of Farnese, the situation during the 12 years' truce and the final situation. If we could find someone who has the tools to make maps he could probably make it really nice. Piet 19:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The works by John Lothrop Motley on the rise of the Dutch Republic are available on Gutenberg. Might be something of value in it for this page / as source. http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/m Arnoutf 18:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Commanders in infobox
Okay, we've gone back and forth a couple of times now. I think it's pretty clear that adding one commander on each side is nonsense, since the war was so long. The discussion at the user talk pages shows Murderman thinks we should just add other commanders to the infobox as well. Let's not make any more changes until we've reached a consensus. Personally, I think the infobox should just go, it is fit for a battle or a short war but not for this conflict. My proposal would be to merge the Nieuwport picture, date, location etc. and combattants (and maybe some major leaders) into the template that is currently just below it. We would have a nicer template that could be placed on other related pages. Something like the template on the Renaissance pages. Piet 21:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not think we should add commanders. To get an idea some of the main commanders: (Dutch Rebels - William of Orange (no military comm) - Johan van Oldenbarneveldt (no military commander) - Maurice of Orange - Frederick Henry of Orange -vs- Spain Philip II (no military commander) - Duke of Alba - Luis de Requesens - Alexander Farnese (Duke of Parma)).
 * I agree a nicer looking complete and preferably smaller template would be a good idea. This is the one the military history project proposes for a war, although it seems more suited for a single battle. If anyone knows how to build a complete template from scratch I would gladly agree. Arnoutf 17:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Making a template is easy: just Template:Mytemplatename will create one. To edit one, if you edit a complete page (not a section) containing it you will find a list of used templates at the bottom. Or, just open it using Template:Eighty Years' War and edit. It's basically like any other page. But OTOH maybe we can tweak the infobox enough to get what we want. Piet 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Eugh just checked Template:Eighty Years' War, I really don't like it. Piet 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope you won't terribly mind some unasked-for advice: general practice is to list a handful (up to four or five per side) of the most prominent commanders. I see no reason, for example, why Arnoutf's list above couldn't be used. Kirill Lokshin 18:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree the Eighty Years War template is horrible. I have been working with Rex Germanus to design a short template to replace the larger History of the Netherlands for the Republic Era. It is listed (for now) on Template talk:History of the Netherlands. How do you think about replacing the current History of the Netherlands template on this page for the short form? Arnoutf 20:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems a bit short for a template, and I think the flag is too large (although I wouldn't know how to solve that).  Is there an article about the "decline" after the Golden Age? Batavian Revolution does not immediately follow Golden Age, I think? Althoug hit is probably in the Golden Age article. I'm not sure, it contains so little information that I don't think it is valuable on a page. How about making the History of the Netherlands start from 1568 and running until now, which makes a lot more sense anyway? Piet 20:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or, if it has to be about the repblic only, add a few more articles, maybe make a few sections like "Golden Age art" and "Economy" or "VOC". Could be a really good template but it has to give more of an overview than just war/republic/golden age/revoluion. A lot more must have happened :-) Piet 20:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Open for discussion, but the complete template was taking up too much space on the page. There is a bit about decline in Golden Age, and Batavian Revolution treats 2nd half of 18th century (leading to French domination). I put it up for now, to show how it looks (I think it improves readability); but if people disagree I won't protest reversions. Arnoutf 20:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Commanders are back, now they are some of the leaders of the revolt William of Orange and Maurice (not Frederick Henry for some obscure reason) and Philip II (who was not a military commander at all) and his general Alba. Interestingly the current selection implies that by the later stages of the war (after 1625 with the war lasting until 1648!!) there was no command on either side (as William, Philip and Alba all died before 1600 and Maurice died in 1625). Hence the selection of commanders is nonsense and has been deleted. Arnoutf (talk) 23:07, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

New Eighty Years' War template?
Concerning the template, I don't like Template:Eighty Years' War and I don't think the Military infobox and campaignbox are the best solution. I would create a custom box that integrates what we have now into one template. I would put it in place of Template:Eighty Years' War but I want us to agree on it so I'll wait a few days. Comments or objections? Piet 20:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't really see what a custom template would gain you space-wise; and creating one would cause consistency problems with other war articles, obviously. Kirill Lokshin 08:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I share Kirill's misgivings and I don't think a major crack in uniformity is justifiable that does not come with significant advantages in its favour. The Campaignbox system presently in place (and its previous incarnations) has enjoyed editors' passive support for several years now. I'd be interested to hear what it is you object to; disliking the template because it lacks flashy pictures, I'm afraid, is no grounds for replacement. Your substitute, as Kirill has pointed-out, seems to carry out its function rather inefficiently in comparison. I'm also concerned with the graphic it uses; the Spanish flag, for one, is anachronistic for the period portrayed, and the slogan "Fall of the Spanish Empire" doesn't strike me as particularly neutral or accurate. Any general concerns with the Campaignbox can of course be subject to further discussion, but as it stands I would oppose the addition of the new template. Albrecht 23:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I still haven't created the new template. I dislike the one that is currently at Template:Eighty Years' War, and the flags are definitely wrong. I meant to replace it but have been a bit busy. Sorry for the confusion. Piet 08:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

B-class
This article has just been rated as B-class. Not that I disagree with the rating but I would expect a few hints on what is currently missing. Piet 21:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Briefly:
 * Inline citations.
 * Piles of single-paragraph sections that need to be cleaned up.
 * Template issues need to be resolved (and no, abandoning the standard templates will not cause the rating to go up, since the article would no longer comply with the relevant WikiProject standards; but whether that's important is something for you to decide).
 * Kirill Lokshin 08:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we have the potential of a good article but I agree we are not there yet; although I have to admit I was a bit disappointed at seeing the B-level for the first time. When I read a bit deeper into the criteria I have to agree though (B-class seems to mean something like - most of the information is there, only needs confirmation, tightening and cleaning up). some cleaning up and citations need to be finished, as well as all the template issues. I also think we should come to a (more or less) fixed and restfull layout with regard to the images. But first we have to agree that we have all the relevant ones. So I agree; there is some work to do, but then again nobody implied the article was already finished. Arnoutf 14:39, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're suggesting that abandoning the standard template would make the rating go down? That's absolutely ridiculous. Guidelines are what they are, guidelines. They are not laws. If the standard templates are not fit for our situation, then the right thing to do is make our own template. What matters is how it looks and not the source code. But anyway, it's a very minor issue. Thanks for the comments. Piet 09:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ridiculous? It's straight from WP:WIAFA (#3): "...complies with the standards set out in the style manual and relevant WikiProjects."  (And yes, they are guidelines; but that doesn't mean that they should be abandoned without a good reason.  The whole point of templates is to have a consistent appearance among similar articles; this obviously doesn't work if each article gets its own custom-designed template.) Kirill Lokshin 09:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the wikiproject says The guidelines presented in this section are intended to be guidelines only; while they are well-suited for the vast majority of military history articles, there exist a number of peculiar cases where, for lack of a better solution, alternate approaches have been taken. And this does apply to about every rule in Wikipedia (See Ignore all rules). Don't think I am just doing this because I like making templates, I think the templates from the wikiproject are not useful to us. If there is a good solution using those templates, I will gladly support it. But I will not sacrifice a better end result just to comply with guidelines. Well, I will of course if consensus would go that way... Piet 10:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know (I wrote that section myself); but, as I mentioned, they should be abandoned for a good reason. I'm quite curious what the difficulty with using the standard infobox is in this case; perhaps you could point out the problems with it?  I know that we've adapted it to work for quite bizarre cases; this is a pretty straightforward two-sided war, so I can't imagine what the major issues would be.  (If it's just the listing of commanders, I wouldn't think that would necessitate throwing out the entire design, just deciding on which commanders—if any—ought to be included.)  Kirill Lokshin 12:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll make the template as I would like to see it, then we can decide which way to go. Commanders: a list of commanders does not seem the best idea for such a long war, a list of the different phases in the conflict would seem better, but I wouldn't mind much if they were added. That's not the big problem. I didn't find any other long-stretched conflict that uses the military infobox (Hundred Years' War, Thirty Years' War, Cold War), otherwise we could compare. Maybe you know any. The basic problem I think is that the parameters (place, casus, territory, result, combatants, strength, casualties) don't seem to make a lot of sense in describing this conflict. Place, casus, territory, combatants, strength have varied some much in those 80 years that IMHO nothing sensible can be said about them in an infobox. And how can we ever arrive at a casualty count for the whole conflict? So we end up with the crippled infobox that we have now. Piet 13:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There's nothing too unusual with stripped-down infoboxes; Italian Wars has the same thing (even shorter, actually), as does War of the League of Cambrai (which has a separate table further down in the article listing phases. I'll take a look at what you have in mind; but I think that a basic infobox—image, date, place, result, combatants—plus a campaignbox listing the sequence of battles is a good fit for the top of the article.  (It's generally good practice to have an image in that position, which this infobox allows; I'm not sure if this would be possible with a smaller box.) Kirill Lokshin 13:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I probably wouldn't have used that infobox for Italian Wars either. In fact it's much worse than here. This is only confusing to me. I don't know who was fighting who, what they fought over, where they fought, what the result was. If a box on the side is not clarifying, then I think it has no use. A custom template could give a much better idea what the war was about. Piet 14:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Location: Italy, France, England, Spain, Germany
 * Result: Habsburg victory


 * I'm not sure I entirely agree here. The infobox isn't meant to replace the lead section (which should explain everything you mentioned more coherently), but only to provide an at-a-glance summary of some of the most important points, names, and places involved.  I don't think you'll be able to both adequately summarize a war as long and complicated as this one to the level of detail you desire and simultaneously to create a box that isn't absurdly large.  Feel free to prove me wrong, though ;-) Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like small boxes, if for no other reason then that large boxes mess up layout, and with that readability (see my effort on the Dutch History - Short box on the 80 yrs war page). One of the reasons why I object to commanders in the box. I thin the box is reasonable as it is now. However, a better image than the rather yellow Battle of Nieuwpoort would be ok with me. Arnoutf 20:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How about the lead images from Battle of the Downs or Siege of Breda? Kirill Lokshin 23:08, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot has happened since the B-class judgement. Texts have been expanded, references added (although they may be furhter developed). And figures were added/updated. What do you think is needed before we ask for a new quality assessment while being fairly confident we go to (at least) GA level? By the way, the importance of the article is not rated yet either; in my opinion the importance is top (see e.g. aftermath). Please let me know your opinion Arnoutf 20:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a reassessment would lead to a higher rating as it is now. I'd say we're close to (at least) GA status, but the issue of in-line references will be brought up again – they usually look for about one reference per paragraph. Also, I didn't reread the article completely, be sure to give it a full review before applying for GA – just mentioning this, I'm not sure if it's necessary. IMHO, the article is great and with a few more in-line references could apply for FA status soon. Piet | Talk 08:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hook and Cod wars
It has to be kept in mind that the independence of the cities from their aristrocratic overlords had only be gained by the citizens in the Hook and Cod wars less then a century before, so the issue of central control was probably still fairly sensitive. The struggle between the new merchant class and the traditional feudal rulers was not only fought in this war. A few examples from the city I know best: In 1340, Ghent took sides in the Hundred Years' War against its French king to protect the textile trade with England. In 1453 it rebelled against the Count of Burgundy and in 1539 against Charles V. As it is now, the Hook and Cod wars are presented as the battle that solved these issues for the Netherlands. But the cities did not gain their independence, only certain rights, and the struggle was not only fought in the Hook and Cod wars. So I would just leave this out and stick to a description of the situation without mentioning the battle. Piet 08:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I put the Hook and cod wars in to contextualize the Dutch aversion to centralised government. I think some reference to this peculiar trait would help the article. But reading your comment I am not sure whether my suggestion was the best, but I have to admit I have fairly limited knowledge about these issues. If anyone has another idea, please go ahead. Arnoutf 09:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hook and Cod Wars were a purely Hollandic phenomenon. There were comparable 'civil war groops' in Friesland, Guelders, and the bishopric of Utrecht, but as far as I know the political systems in Brabant and Flanders had mostly nothing to with this specific kind of faction struggle. Also note that the Hook and Cod Wars started around 1350 as a civil war between supporters of Count William V of Holland and the supporters of his mother, Margaret and later it still was more of a struggle between nobles, sometimes supported by cities, between the pro-Burgundian Cods and the anti-Burgundian Hooks. The Hook and Cod wars had also more or less ended by 1500. I personally think one shouldn't exaggerate 'Dutch aversion to centralized government', or the specific values of the Netherlands' merchant classes. All leaders on the Dutch side were nobles, most notaly the Orange-Nassau's themselves, one of the most wealthy and influential families in the Netherlands. Also, it is clear that the rebels from the start didn't intend to start a Republic. Not only did they first not blame Philip II, but his advisors (and men like Alva), and continued to call him their king/count/duke (like for example with Leiden University, which was founded in the name of Philip II), but after they finally gave up on Philip, they searched for a different person thrice to become king: Anjou, Leicester and finally William the Silent himself. It was only after the third frustration of these attempts with the murder of William that a Republican state was truly implemented. Tom 11:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok how about this, I ll take out the hook-cod war. But add that nobility did not like centralisation either. Arnoutf 11:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Images
Perhaps we would put up an image of the map of the 17 netherlands as the Leo Belgicus in the campaing infobox. Quick googling shows there are many such maps, but only 1 on wiki of relatively low quality. Can someone get hold of a better quality copyright free image? Arnoutf 20:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Found this one on Dutch wikipedia (their 80 years war is featured, so we may have a look at that one).

Map
The map shows Portugal as part of the spanish empire...again Portugal was not part of the spanish empire, just a kingdom in personal union with Spain. I think a correct legend will be "lands of Philip II of Spain, Philip I of Portugal in 1580". Again, Portugal was never part of the spanish empire.--Câmara 14:35, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The Netherlands were actually also only in personal union with 'Spain'. If you wish to be consistent, Philip II of Spain should also be Philip V of Flanders, Philip IV of Brabant, Philip III of Holland, etc. Wouldn't adding a lot of numbers only be confusing? Tom 15:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Spanish empire is not the same as Spain. I see it more as an informal name which at one time may have included Portugal, the Netherlands and so on. Even Spain itself was still just a personal union of Aragon, Castile and others. So I don't think it has to be changed. Piet 15:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm, Arnout changed it anyway. I think it is worse now. Spanish Empire is the name by which it is normally referred to, national sensitivities or not. Piet 22:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know dutch history well, but I saw in "history of Netherlands". As the United Provinces, Portugal was an dynastic aquisition by the king of Spain. But Portugal was independent before Philip I become king and was kept separated, the United Provinces were not, so they would be part of the country (like for example Colombia, but with larger autonomy - three county). Philip II of Spain was acclaimed as king Philip in Portugal (later become Philip I), so the numbers are correct: both countrys were separated and Portugal never had a king called Philip. It was silly have a king called Philip II without a previous Philip. Check out in wikipedia for these kings, you will see them as "King Philip X of Spain, Philip X-1 of Portugal".

The question with the definition of Spain is correct as you point. Spain was considered as the Iberian Peninsula with Portugal included. But the two countrys remained separated, so that's why Portugal was not part of the Spanish empire, although it was geographicaly "spanish". There are several degrees of personal union. You can have a fused country (Austro-Hungarian Empire) or two separated countries (like Portugal and Spain) and quite subjective variations of these. Here in Portugal when we talk about Spanish empire we talk about non-portuguese lands, even by history-studying people. The Dutch-Portuguese war was between Portugal and the United Provinces and not between Span and United Provinces. Portugal fought by itself even if our king had a giant empire. Look at Anglo-Portuguese alliance. The Habsburg kings were hostile to England but Portugal not so the alliance was not broke up even if the two countries were fighting (by orders of the Habsburg kings).

The part I read I will put here:

"Through inheritance and conquest, all of the Low Countries became possessions of the Habsburg dynasty under Charles V in the 16th century, who united them into one state. The east of the Netherlands was occupied only a few decades before the Dutch struggle for independence. However, in 1548, eight years before his abdication from the throne, Emperor Charles V granted the Seventeen Provinces of the Netherlands status as an entity separate from both the Empire and from France. This Pragmatic Sanction of 1548 was not full independence, but it allowed significant autonomy.

Charles was succeeded by his son Philip II of Spain. Unlike his father, who had been raised in Ghent (Belgium), Philip had little personal attachment to the Low Countries (where he had only stayed for four years), and thus was perceived as detached by the local nobility. A devout Catholic, Philip was appalled by the success of the Reformation in the Low Countries, which had led to an increasing number of Calvinists. John Lathrop Motley writes: "On February 16, 1568 a sentence of the Holy Office condemned all the inhabitants of the Netherlands to death as heretics. From this universal doom only a few persons, especially named, were acquitted. A proclamation of the king, dated ten days later, confirmed this decree of the Inquisition and ordered it to be carried out into instant execution without regard to age and sex. This is the most concise death warrant that had ever been framed. Three million people—men, women and children—were sentenced to the scaffold." (The Rise of the Dutch Republic, by John Lathrop Motley, Volume 1, Part 2, Chapter 2, par. 12, p. 2.) This was not carried out, although the inhabitants of some cities not immediately surrendering to the Spanish army were killed. This was a common military practise at that time. The attempts of Philip II to enforce religious persecution of the Protestants and his endeavours to centralise government, justice and taxes made him unpopular and led to a revolt. The Dutch fought for independence from Spain, leading to the Eighty Years' War (1568-1648). Seven rebellious provinces united in the Union of Utrecht in 1579 and formed the Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (also known as the "United Provinces").

William of Orange, the nobleman from whom every Dutch monarch is descended (including the present Queen), led the Dutch during the first part of the war. The very first years were a success for the Spanish troops. However, subsequent sieges in Holland were countered by the Dutch. The Spanish king lost much popular support in the Netherlands after the sack of Antwerp by mutinous Spanish soldiers, killing 10,000 inhabitants. The conservative Catholics in the south and east supported the Spanish. The Spanish recaptured Antwerp and other Flemish and Dutch cities. It recaptured most of the territory in the south, but not in the northern seven provinces, leading to the historical split between The Netherlands and Flanders). Flanders was the most radical anti-Spanish territory. Many Flemish were allowed to migrate with their possesions. Many rich traders and skilled craftsmen fled to England, Emden and Holland, among them half of the population of Antwerp, three-fourths of Brugge and Ghent and the entire population of Nieuwpoort, Dunkerque and its surrounding countryside. The war dragged on for another 60 years, but the main fighting was over. The Peace of Westphalia, signed on January 30, 1648, confirmed the independence of the United Provinces from Spain and Germany. The Dutch had not regarded themselves as Germans since the 15th century, but they had officially remained a part of the Holy Roman Empire until 1648. As Holland was the most important province by far, the republic of the Seven Provinces came to be known in foreign countries as Holland.

These events were only part of a continent-wide scene of turmoil. See Spanish Armada for a view of some of the history from further west." --Câmara 14:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. I never looked at the History of the Netherlands-page before, but most of this part of the article is clearly bollocks. And who came up with the idea to use the book of John Lathrop Motley, which is 150(!) years old? Anyway, the Netherlands were juridically as much independent from Spain as was Portugal, and as Castile and Aragon were from each other at the time. But they were ruled by the same 'monarch'. Admittedly, Portugal was a late addition in 1580, but in English terminology (as opposed to Portuguese terminology) it is common to call the man Philip II, instead of Philip I. Just like Charles V (in English terminology) is called that after his number as Holy Roman Emperor, instead of Charles I of Spain and several other possible numbers he might have held (technically, he would have been Charles II of Holland, for example). This is the English wikipedia, after all. And why not call Portugal part of the 'Spanish Empire'? The Spanish Empire is called that because it was made up of territories ruled by a monarch who considered himself Spanish and resided mostly in Spain. Tom 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's Lothrop, not Lathrop, and he should not be quoted in that way. But he's not all bad - his is probably still the most detailed narrative in English of the struggle up to the death of Oldenbarnveldt, or thereabouts.  Too whiggish and old and such like, but if one wants the details of what exactly happened, he's still the best place to turn. john k 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

People know better Philip II of Spain as that because he did more things as king of Spain than as king of Portugal, and if is english wikipedia what's the problem? He was Philip II of Spain and I of Portugal, he was not Philip II of Portugal. And I really doubt Netherlands was as much as independent as Portugal was, countries were so separated that even spanish ships were not allowed to enter some portuguese lands, even if the king were the same. Philip I (Por) was very careful about not mixing the two titles, in Portugal he used portuguese clothes and spoke portuguese (he knew portuguese since child) because he knew if he did something wrong dynastic break up could easily happen. That was the problem about Philip III (Por), he tried to fuse Portugal and Spain and that was catastrophic to him: John IV was acclaimed king of Portugal. It's not correct to call Portugal part of the Spanish empire the same way it's not correct to say England was part of Scotland when James I become king: countries were separated, only with the same monarch.--82.155.5.101 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, last message was mine, I forgot to log in.--Câmara 14:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Camara. The historical person Philip is generally known as Philip II of Spain (similar to William III of England, who was also Stadtholder of Holland). That he was also Philip I of Portugal is not very relevant for this article (although it may be of interest for a Portugal focused article). I would not like to use different names as that would be very confusing. Perhaps Portugal was independent in a different way; but the Netherlands did have some independence after the creation of the fairly independent 17 provinces by Charles V (Philips father). I can see that the situation at the Iberian peninsula was very different, but I think long term plans were to fuse Portugal and Spain; together with the other Burgundy-Spanish possession in Europe into an empire. The Netherlands had long been part of the Burgundy empire, and did not fit well into the Spanish empire as well (maybe one of the reasones for the revolt). The personal union of Spain and Portugal under Philip did however mean that Dutch merchants and navy had to / wanted to fight both countries at the same time. Also it is important to consider that the rebellion was partially a religious war. With both Spain and Portugal being catholic they were natural allies here. So although I accept that it was more of a personal union than an empire, for the focus of the article this union was the focus of the rebellion. So I would not lie to change the map. However, as you may have seen, I changed the legend to state 'the area ruled by the Spanish king'. I think you can agree this area included portugal at that time. Arnoutf 15:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think is good now, it was just a note I made. God article Arnoutf ;)--82.155.9.111 14:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the Spanish Crown in 1590, say, had various different possessions. There was the Crown of Castile, which included a large overseas empire (often called the Spanish Empire); there was the Crown of Portugal, which included a separate large overseas empire (the Portuguese Empire); there were the 17 provinces of the Burgundian Netherlands, which were joined together through a common governor and the States-General (of course, large portions of the provinces were not under effective Spanish control in 1590); there was also the duchy of Milan and the free county of Burgundy (Franche Comté); the two separate kingdoms of Sicily; the kingdom of Sardinia; the three states of the crown of Aragon (Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia); and the kingdom of Navarre. None of these areas was unified in a single state, and save Castile, they all had considerable local institutions with various elements of self-government. Catalonia and the Netherlands were at least as independent as Portugal, I think. The reasons Portugal is treated separately are a) it and Castile each had separate overseas colonies; and b) Portugal regained its independence again after a relatively short interval. john k 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Portugal is treated separately because when Philip II of Spain become king of Portugal he swore and sign that Portugal and its colonies would remain separate kingdoms, so a personal union was activated. If not, he never would become king of Portugal. He only defeated the army of António, the Prior of Crato, because he had the support of lots of portuguese nobles to become king. Portuguese nobles called the "cortes" and he was acclaimed in 1581 king Philip I of Portugal. If he invaded Portugal, then Portugal lost its independence. But he defeated an army of another pretender (to someones king of portugal) and was acclaimed by portuguese nobles as the king of the kingdom of Portugal, but with the condition that Portugal and colonies must remain separated. That happened. Philip IV of Spain, III of Portugal tried to abolish portuguese independence, and that's why Portugal went out of the union and John IV was acclaimed king.

What happened with Portugal and Spain happened also with Scotland and England until the fusion of the two countries. And I don't hear nobody say that England was part of the kingdom of Scotland. The same with Norway and Sweden in the late 19th century: two kingdoms, one king. The same with Portugal and Brazil with Peter I of Brazil, IV of Portugal, for a short time. I don't see why people see Spain and Portugal in a different way. It's not even the scenario of a small and a big country ruled together: portuguese empire was as powerful as the spanish. Portugal was not part of Spain nor Spain was part of Portugal. Both were separated, and the empires were separated too.

The "Spain" thing is also problematic. "Spain" officialy was only created in the 18th century, until that Castille, Leon and Aragon were in personal union, similar to the Kalmar Union with Denmark, Norway and Sweden. I think calling it Spain is only somewhat acceptable because now it exists a coutry called Spain in those territories. This is the problem of "modernisation" of the past countries, we try to adapt a present name to the past. But if we want to be accurate, we must use the correct names, the old ones.Câmara 01:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Look, the map says "European territories under the rule of the Spanish king". This is correct under your explanation as well. Remember that Portugal is not important to this article, the map serves to indicate the extent of the power of the King of Spain. We all know that Portugal was only in a personal union, the same goes for all the other territories that were ruled by the King of Spain. He was not King of the Netherlands, he was Count of Holland, Count of Flanders, Duke of Brabant etc. As you point out, he was not even King of Spain. But that does not matter to this article, because in the Eigthy Years' War he acted as King of Spain. Don't use this article to prove a point, remember it's an article about the Eighty Years' War and not about Spanish-Portuguese relations. Piet | Talk 08:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some good points about Portugal; I agree with Piet though that it is not about Portugal. Note that the 17 Netherlands were also a combination of Personal Unions under the Burgundian Rulers (The burgundian family became to hold the titles of (ao) Count of Holland; Count of Zeeland; Count of Friesland; Count of Flanders; Duke of Guelders; Duke of Brabant; Bishop of Utrecht etc). Only Charles V converted this patchwork of personal unions into (the semblence) a unity (the 17 Netherlands); that in themselves were again in personal union to the ruler of Burgundian empire. It was this personal union that Philip inherited whebn Charles abdicated in 1555; ie he became ruler of the 17 Netherlands separately from becoming king of Spain (see the Spanish Habsburg box at the bottom of Philip_II_of_Spain how complex his inheritence were). The Netherlands (just as Portugal) were never part of Spain (or Castille and Leon/Aragon) either. The complexity of conquest by marriage in the late middle ages is indeed confusing at the least.
 * With regard to naming, as far as I know it is common use among histroic texts (in English) to refer to the empire as the Spanish Empire and to Philip as King of Spain although the official country did not yet exist; I think we should use the accepted historical phrases even if the historic (old) truth is slightly different. If others have good reasons why not, I am happy to accept that though Arnoutf 08:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was not discussing the map this time, I was just continuing the talk. But you are right, this is not the place to discuss this, as this has no real interest to the article. I don't think the use of "accepted names" is so good. Some mistakes are made that sometimes are important, others don't. In this case, I said before that I accept "Spain" because a future state was created exactly in those dynastic-united territories. Anyway I will stop posting on this here. Sorry about these posts being useless here and taking your time. Camara. 81.193.7.57 09:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just had a look at the section about this time in the History of Portugal (History_of_Portugal#Decline_of_the_Empire), I think that article could benefit from your comments as the whole personal union issues is not treated there. Arnoutf 18:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If the Netherlands and Portugal were not part of the SPANISH Empire then I wonder why they had to fight for INDEPENDENCE FROM SPAIN so hard and for decades, hehe. If it was just a "dynastic" union without consequences (similar to the one with England) then there wouldn´t be any need to fight for INDEPENDENCE. The fact is that both, Portugal and the Netherlands, fought for Independence from Spain and it was only recognized by SPAIN during the 1640s...That the real fact.--88.18.150.26 (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things
Firstly, I notice that old Don John doesn't get a mention here, and indeed, the whole 1576-1581 period seems to be treated in insufficient detail. Don John ought to be mentioned, I think, and that period, which was fairly key (and rather incredibly confusing) ought to be discussed in more depth.

Secondly, I was wondering about the addition of some other sources to the reference list (or to a "further reading" list, or something). Firstly, Motley's old history is available at Project Gutenberg. It is of course very old, and very whiggish, but it's also the most detailed narrative of the war in English (or, at least, of the main part of it - Motley doesn't cover the post 1621 stuff). I think a link to Motley at Gutenberg, with a discussion that it's very old and outdated, but also very detailed, is perhaps in order. Secondly, there's Pieter Geyl's stuff - rather old, but not nearly as old as Motley, and not nearly as whiggish. Not as long and detailed, either, though, although still pretty long. Thirdly, Geoffrey Parker's The Dutch Revolt would presumably be the current standard on at least the military aspects of the conflict. More modern, and more short, than Geyl. Thoughts? john k 01:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Geyl and Motley are now listed under further reading.Arnoutf 14:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Images
I added some images, and tried to distribute them more evenly over the whole article. I think it has imporved, however, in the central part of the article, the images tend to be a bit portrait heavy. Anyone an idea what to do about that? I am thinking of putting in at least one naval battle (Downs, or Gibraltar); but that should link in better with the current text (that hardly discusses the naval battles). Alternatively we could replace van Oldenbarneveldt by a drawing of his beheading ; however, I do not have access to a copyright free version of one of those. Anyone? Any other ideas also welcome. Arnoutf 14:51, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Battle box
I'm going to create all the battles and conflicts which currently have no articles on wikipedia. Most will be stubs, but at least it will make the box look better. ("Beter iets dan niets") Rex 09:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, looks much better.Erm, a few truly are stubs others are small articles and a few are nice regular articles. Rex 14:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Combatants?
Currently the infobox says "Dutch rebels vs. Spanish Empire" I could agree that this is true for the initial stage, but really in the course of the war these "rebels" had the most advanced army in the world as well as a government. Is the "rebels" the correct terminolgy, seems a bit hispano-centred at the moment.Rex 12:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the article is enough Dutch centered to counter that single bit of more spanish centred info. The laterniatvie would be the Netherlands, but that is weird with ragard to Flanders, or the Dutch, who did not really exist in 1566. Personally I think Dutch rebels is the best alternative; although I see your point. By the way, I am not fully convinced that we should spell out that the war lasted 82 yrs (incl truce) in the battlebox; my preference is for keeping these summary boxes as clean (read empty) as possible. Arnoutf 13:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm getting back to an old discussion... The beginning would be a rebellion all over the Low Countries, which cannot really be called a war yet, second phase is the rebels in the north and then it's the Dutch Republic, which de facto existed long before it was officially recognized. Which brings me to something I said some time ago: the standard infobox using the words "combatants" is not suited to describe such a conflict. I once planned to make a better one but never did it. Well, there's no hurry :-) But if we have to make one choice I would say Dutch rebels is not bad.
 * By the way, why is location "Netherlands" but linked to "Low Countries"? Why not just "Low Countries"? Oh, now that I think of it, this has changed a couple of times over the last months hasn't it? Maybe we could say "Spanish Netherlands", does that seem okay? Piet | Talk 20:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mind the Low Countries as location; it is definitely less ambivalent then Netherlands. I think the maps (including the Leo Belgicus) already show the theatre of war is the larger Netherlands Arnoutf 20:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * All things considered, I go for Low Countries. Including "Low Countries vs. Spanish Empire."--  Iterator12n   Talk  14:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No mention of the English contingents at Zutphen etc. eitherJatrius 13:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * These were of truly minor importance. The original battles (e.g. Heiligerlee) were fought with all kinds of mercenaries. We should focus on the main combatants, English troops had only a marginal role, so I say, leave them out. Arnoutf 14:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Marginal, perhaps. BUT they were combatants and you cannot just wish them out of historical 'existence' or is your intention to rewrite history rather than relate it to others? Perhaps the Dutch Resistance from 1940-45 was marginal, should their role be elided according to your principles in any account of the anti-Nazi resistance throughout WW2?Jatrius 20:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not see the Netherlands in the WWII infobox. But should we then also list all the mercenaries countries (especially in the first half of the war), the Germans and the French (who became involved during the 30 years war)? Then we should also list portugal, as that was involved in colonial battles. That would mean listing half of Europe for what was basically a civil war.
 * What would be the added information value of adding all marginal combatants? Note I am not talking data but information (ie interpreted data) - creating confusion by increasing data can often result in reducing information value. Arnoutf 20:49, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Accepted (to a point) I don't wish to be antagonistic. However, this is the English language wikipedia and a large number of those coming here will be following links from English subjects (forgive the pun) e.g. Sir Philip Sidney etc. I do think that ALL combatants should be made mention of, even if not in the infobox (your arguments for clarity there are irrefutable), somewhere in the text. I do think that the war's characterization as a civil war fails to encapsulate the war's impact on Europe and the larger world. I think your view would possibly fit better on the Dutch wikipedia, should such an animal exist. Jatrius 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree the English forces should be mentioned in the body text. Also the last section tries to make explicit that it had large consequences within Europe, although the whole text may have more of this. (and yes a Dutch wiki does exist) -- Arnoutf (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The whole notion of fighting the Spanish is to a certain extent rebel's POV: making the king a foreigner is clearly rebel propaganda. Most of the Netherlands were longer in Habsburg possession than Castile and Aragon. Also Charles V, the king's father, was born in the Netherlands. Dutch Empire vs. Dutch rebels? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.18.192.124 (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is only true to a little extent. The presence and behaviour of the Spanish armies (i.e. the Habsburg controlled Spanish armies) were seen as foreign occupation by the Dutch.
 * Indeed Charles was born in the Netherlands, and he managed to keep the empire together. Philip felt, ruled and behaved like a Spanish king, so he was the Spanish king. Anyway, the Habsburg empire was never the Dutch Empire. But of course if you can find academic sources agreeing on this we can reconsider. Arnoutf (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

1566?
To my great surprise, the Eighty Years' War now lasts 82 years. Why was the start changed from 1568 to 1566? I've always known it to be 1568 and Britannica also uses 1568. Piet | Talk 08:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point! The general consensus is to start the war with The Battle of Heiligerlee (indeed in 1568); however it seems this article takes the iconoclasm of 1566 as official starting day.... Although the rebellion had been gaining some support so it can be argued that 1566 is better, I think going to 1566 would comprise 'original research' and therefore against Wiki policy. Thus unless an acclaimed (printed or peer reviewed) source turns up I think we should stick with 1568. Arnoutf 09:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The "Dutch Rebellion" is always given as starting in 1566, with the Iconoclastic riots and the dispatch of Alva to the Netherlands. I'm less certain about general discussion of the "80 Years War", but this certainly isn't some kind of crazy date made up out of thin air date.  The Hundred Years War lasted for 116 years, so I don't see that exact accuracy of title is terribly meaningful.  The Encyclopedia of World History, by the way, gives 1567, but begins their coverage in 1566.  The real date, at any rate, should be 1572, as that's the first year any kind of sustained resistance began, and when Holland became the center of the rebellion. john k 10:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Adding to this - Perhaps in Dutch 1568 is standard, but I will note that, Britannica aside, I've never seen it given as the opening year before. 1566 or 1567 are the years I've always seen. john k 10:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason for 1568, is that this is the year of the first classical battles; of mercenary armies contracted by William of Orange to conquer the land from the Spanish. In terms of classical warfare 1568 seems therefore warranted. On the other hand the Dutch rebellion is hardly a classical war. The 1566 iconoclasm is one option. The arrival of Alba and the start of the Bloodcourt (1567) could also be seen as the start; although the Bartelby link above gives the start of the open rebellion as 1568. 1572 is the moment the tide started to turn in favour of the rebellion in Holland and the first battlelines could be drawn (before that it was more about isolated rebellions and incidental battles). I see, however, no reason why it should start there; as the fight was on for several years before.
 * Summarising there are four possible dates to start the war:


 * 1566 Iconoclasm in Antwerp sparks uprisings
 * 1567 Alba marches in and suppresses uprisings by military means
 * 1568 William of Orange manages to put an army in the field and the first classical battle is fought (Heiligerlee)
 * 1572 The fight turns to the cities of Holland and Flanders; where the Dutch start out to build their territory.
 * Reviewing these I think either 1566 or 1568 are THE candidates. I will check on some sources and suggest a referenced solution.Arnoutf 11:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to come back to the above, Pieter Geyl lists the period 1555-1572 as prelude and the period 1572 as Holland and Zeeland in revolt. The Leiden University website, notices 1550 as an important date with the issue of the bloedplakkaat tegen hervorming (death penalty? on reformation). No explicit mention of a starting date with either though. The recently published canon of Dutch history mentions the "war against Spainthat started in 1568 with a number of military invasions" (i.e. Heiligerlee) Arnoutf 18:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, basic issue is that there really is no single date for the beginning. In general, most histories begin with 1555 - that's where Motley began, as well, with the abdication of Charles V.  Obviously the rebellion/war didn't start then, but that's the official beginning of the "prelude to the rebellion", or whatever.  I agree that both 1566 and 1568 seem to be used.  I changed it to 1566 because it's more inclusive. john k 02:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think a footnote, or some text in the main article should be added to clarify this? Arnoutf 08:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How do you think about something like this: 'As with most rebellions it is hard to give an exact date when the war started. Most accounts start discussing the immediate prelude to the war with the abdication of Charles V (ref Geyl, ref Motley). The first open violence that would lead to the war was the 1566 iconoclasm. Sometimes the first Spanish repressions under Alba of the riots (e.g. Oosterweel - ref) are also considered the start of the war. Most commonly though the invasion instigated by William of Orange with an army of mercenaries, and the battle of Heiligerlee are seen as the offical starting date of the war (ref Canon dutch history ref Britannica).' Arnoutf 09:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's too long for the lead section but it can go in an introductory paragraph. For the lead section we just have to decide on a date, either 1566 or 1568. The prelude doesn't matter, the prelude to WWI also starts long before 1914. The iconoclasm to me does not seem a part of the war either, but we have to check some sources. Piet | Talk 12:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, It was not meant for the lead section, more for one of the introductory ones. Have no sources here; but will have a further look soon. Both Geyl and Motley don't give a specific date. Arnoutf 12:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Allow me, as a historian, to join this discussion. I think the confusion over 1566/1568 is largely due to two different, largely intertwined processes: the Eighty Years' War and the Dutch rebellion. The hostilities between the Dutch and Spain broke out/came to the fore in 1566, with the Beeldenstorm. However, that was not part of the war. It was the Spanish response to the Beeldenstorm that triggered the war. The war itself started in 1568 and ended in 1648, with an intermezzo from 1609 to 1621. If we talk about the Dutch rebellion, the year 1566 is a very plausible starting point. But this article is about the Eighty Years' War, and that broke out in 1568. A ecis Brievenbus 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine with me to change it; we should be careful the structure of the article is in line. Note that Dutch revolt redirects to this page; and of course, and of course it depends on how you define war, if that is the first battle between armies you are right. Anyway, it is getting dangerously close to original research anyway to leave it at 1566 against normal practice. I would like to keep the (altered footnote) though in this case explaining that although the war started in 68, the revolt already started in 66. Arnoutf 08:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

French gains in 1648?
In the introduction it says that 'In 1648, large areas were lost to France.' Surely this is not correct as France and Spain were still at war until 1658 and France was in the middle of the Fronde in 1648. Davewild 18:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

1659 was the end of the war with Spain. The Spanish had to cede Artois. in 1668 and 1678, and between 1680 and 1683, they lost further territories, but then got some of them back in 1697, iirc. The modern border was set in 1713. But none of this is really relevant to this article. john k 18:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I gather from the relevant articles: The French had control over these areas in 1648 and were a party in the Peace of Westphalia. After the Frondes the Spanish tried to regain these lands, but failed. The status quo was confirmed in the peace of the Pyrenee treaty of 1659. So I think reprhasing to 'By 1648, large areas were lost to France' covers the bill. PS this is fairly relevant as Artois is one of the low countries - Arras is the French name for Atrecht (cf Union of Atrecht) Arnoutf 18:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Treaty of Münster with the Emperor contained no provisions with respect to the Netherlands. And we usually call it the "Union of Arras" in English...I don't see why this is relevant to the 80 Years War, though - it has little to do with it, but relates to a completely different war. john k 01:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to be clear: Which emperor do you mean the king of Spain?
 * The Treaty the French signed in 1648 was the Treaty of Münster with the Emperor, of whom there was only one. He was not the King of Spain. john k 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * i.e. the Holy Roman Emperor. I thought you meant that, but just to make sure, as there is also a Spanish Empire at that time which may cause confusion. Arnoutf 08:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * With regard to your comments: Yes there were provisions with respect to the Netherlands. i.e. the Northern Netherlands were allowed to be independent. Although the Artois region was as far as I know not included in the treaty. Westphalia was the end of the thirty Years' War as well as the 80 yrs war. The Artois region was lost to Spain in the 1648 Battle_of_Lens; although this was only acknowledged in 1659. The relevance for the 80yrs war is that the united 17 Netherlands were dissolved during these 80 yrs: Northern Netherlands to form republic, Several Southern Netherlands remain part of Habsburg empire; Several Southern Netherlands are occupied by the French.
 * The loss of Artois to France had nothing to do with the 80 Years War, and shouldn't be discussed in this article. john k 02:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS As Wikipedia calls it Union of Atrecht; let's just call it that way. Arnoutf 07:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we should consider naming it Union of Arras if that's what it's usually called in English.
 * However, it is certainly relevant to this article as the region was a part of the Seventeen Provinces and it went to France during this war. Piet | Talk 08:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I stand corrected. You are right Piet, if the usual English is Union of Arras, as seems to be the case (e.g. in consise Britannica) we should change (and rename the Union of Atrecht article). Bit sad though we lose the nice name-similarity(Utrecht-Atrecht) but that can never be an argument Arnoutf 08:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

maps of hapsburg empire
the maps don have Franche-comte nor milan (or lombardy) as part of the spanish empire.. it was through milan than franche-comte that the spanish road ran through.


 * It has Franche Comté, but puts it in the wrong place (it shows it in Alsace, Switzerland, and southwest Germany). john k 01:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a map for the 1547 Habsbrug empire (but not easy to read): [[Image:Habsburg_Map_1547.jpg|thumb|150 px]]; showing indeed Milan, and France Comte, as well as several central european areas. Perhaps transfer this infromation into the cleaner map provided by Rex? Arnoutf 22:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see any particular reason to show the Austrian Habsburg lands. john k 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree we shouldn't show the Austrian lands, I just put it up to show the Milan / Franche Comté areas. Arnoutf 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

prelude/nobility in opposition
I think in the prelude to the war an extra section 'Nobility in opposition' is needed. Without such a section the relevance of Egmont and Horne, the fligt and subsequent invasions of William seem loose ends. Furhtermore this could nicely link with governors prior to Alva, Margaretha van Parma and the geuzen Arnoutf 10:36, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Last words by William of Orange
Recently Williams last words at assassination were added. I am not sure we should put that in here; as we want to keep the article focussed and consise (i.e. not allowing it to grow too much). This specific bit of information seems more suitable for William's biography article (which is the main article and duely linked). I would suggest taking the new lines out and only leaving information that is really relevant for the war in this article. Arnoutf 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I just added them as a bit of a fact and a hint about how he "helped" the rebelion after his death. You can remove it whenever you want. Rex 17:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Dutch Revolt as a separate event?
What do people think on the Dutch Revolt as a separate article? It seems to me that it (or they, rather, as it was 3 revolts) was the central stage of the 80 Years' War, and, as such, merits a separate article. Iain 02:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not completely clear what you mean, but I do not agree for several reasons:


 * (1) Reason from published literature: Many historians use the terms 80 years war and Dutch revolt for the same event; so making this split would not conform to the published literature and thus cause more confusion then solving it.
 * (2) Practical reason: To write comprehensible articles a lot of redundancy would be necessary. Practically I am not convinced that the added value of the split weighs against this redundancy (and the related increase in problems with article maintenance improvement)
 * (3) Conceptual reason: I do not fully understand what you mean with 3 revolts (I guess you mean initial unrest 1566-1572 - Resurgence 1572-1609 - Final stage 1621-1648). Although for the storyline we split this into 3 episodes they cannot be separated; it is one revolt starting with riots - going to an independent area - ending with Spanish acceptance of independence. As with many revolts there was a period of rioting (1566) some battles and some cities declaring openly for the rebellion which was almost (but not completely) repressed by 1572. Revolutionaries lying low untill they are supported by the 1572 capture of Brielle; after which it really ignited and the Spanish troops could not win anymore. So any split between initial and central stage seems very strange as it is just the changing tide of a rebellion. To split of the period 1609-1648 is (IMHO) also not a good idea. First of all, as this period is the essential conclusion of the revolt where in 1648 the Spanish king had to abandon all claims to the Northern Netherlands.

So in summary - No I am against splitting the article Arnoutf 08:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree with Arnout. Moreover, I don't know what you would mean by Dutch revolt as the nature of the revolt is very different in the different stages of the war, and even the meaning of the word Dutch would be different before and after the war. Piet | Talk 20:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Infobox result
I feel "Dutch victory" is not correct as only half the territory became independent (Northern Netherlandish point of view - sorry for bringing it up again :-) ). Moreover, the article itself uses the word "stalemate" in the later stages which is very different from victory. The outcome is "independence of the northern provinces", which should suffice. Piet | Talk 20:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My earlier revert of the same edit was indeed with a Dutch POVin the summary: rem victory. Not really a victory as 10 of 17 netherlands were lost; but I think we mean the same ;-) But without kidding; I agree it was not a full-victory and the "independence of northern provinces" should suffice and is sufficiently NPOV Arnoutf 20:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

There a number of ways we can get lost talking past each other here, but I will highlight this point that I think was fundamental to victory: the Dutch mostly accomplished their objectives and the Spanish did not. Beyond POV, this is also about standardization. We need an x victory or defeat unless historical literature and opinion regards this conflict as being inconclusive somehow, which is not the case at all. In fact, the conflict is often cited as a strong contributing factor to the beginning of the end of Spanish dominance. Makes no sense for it to be viewed in that light if this was not a Dutch victory.UberCryxic 01:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see your point but do not necessarily agree. First of all the original Dutch objectives were religious tolerance (for protestantism) and tax relief for all the 17 provinces. This has clearly not been achieved. Leaving the Spanish empire was originally not at all an objective. Only mcuh later (about 1580 onwards), the objective became the religious freedom and independence (still for all of the 17 provinces). In the end only independence of the 7 provinces was achieved. I agree the Spanish (mainly) lost as they did not accomplish their objectives (keeping control over all 17 Netherlands); but I have a problem agreeing the Dutch did really win, as they did not achieve their (original) primary objective and ended up with a divided realm. I do not see the necessity for a victory label as this is to much black and white; and some nuance would not harm the issue (IMHO). Arnoutf 09:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, UberCryxic, you could have waited the result of this discussion before reverting me. Piet | Talk 11:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am also worried about a simplistic portrayal, but fortunately the additional commentary in the infobox clarifies and allays these concerns. If you are willing to admit that the Spanish "mainly" lost, then the label "Dutch victory" is more than appropriate, on top of, certainly, the other statements. Furthermore, I am a little surprised with what you are saying and am tempted to regard it as original research. The vast majority of historians now and contemporaries during the war were very impressed by the Dutch performance (the region became known as the 'School of War'). There are actually very few people who are credible enough to talk about this war that would call it anything but a Dutch victory, nuance aside.UberCryxic 17:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All political connotations aside - Military historians are also very impressed by Nazi German performance in the Early stages of WWII (Blitzkrieg); the war was hardly a Nazi victory though (thank God). I think listing/discussing the sources here may lead to a (historian sources based) consensus; which I would happy to be take up Arnoutf 17:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Even if in the end it was a victory for the Northern Netherlands, the war (or rebellion) started throughout the entire Netherlands, and 10 of the provinces were not victorious. And I really don't see why we should make sacrifices to this article for the sake of standardization. Some people are obsessed with making an infobox look the same in all articles. Why not just accept that you cannot describe an 80 year conflict in the same way as a 3 month conflict? Everything on this page can be talked about, there's been an enormous amount of discussion here, but every now and then someone comes in and without ever working on the article before, makes undiscussed changes just for the sake of standardization. Standardization is a tool, not a goal. Every article must stand on its own. Piet | Talk 11:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to make sure I am not misunderstood. I agree with Piet (not to put victory in; for the same reasons as his). However if someone provides a showcase of several recent scholarly publications (ie international refereed scientific journals and books published by scientific printing houses) that form a consensus that the war came to a Dutch victory I am willing to change my mind (but not before). Arnoutf 11:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Just a few comments regarding name of this article, used sources and the Military Revolution
Since Arnoutf asked me to, I decided to check this article. I haven't actually read through it all, but I immediately notice a few things, so let me adress those first.

1) Why the title "80-years war" instead of "Dutch Revolt"? I'd be in favour of changing them around. Nowadays among historians the term 80-years war is hardly ever used anymore, for various reasons, and has been replaced by Dutch Revolt. (One of the reason was that there was no continuous fighting, another being that there were other matters relating to the conflict that were better included by the term Revolt, another that out of those 80 years, 12 of them were actually covered by a cease-fire, but also the fact that it was not a war between nations, but a conflict between a souvereign and his subjects.)

2) The references used are mostly seriously outdated, even though contemporary editions are used instead of the originals. But except when using contemporary eye-witness accounts or when a certain topic is not covered anywhere else and suchlike, historians are supposed to use the most up-to-date sources. I'd like to recommend dropping all references to such outdated material, (even in "recommended reading" as we don't want people to read up on views from about 200 years ago) and using the books by Parker and Israel, as recommended in further reading, for instance. Van Deursen, named elsewhere on this Talk Page, is also used, although personally I'm not very fond of it. Regarding William of Orange's role in all of this, a good account (in Dutch) is given in "Willem van Oranje en de Nederlandse Opstand" by Swart. For a general history (also in Dutch), "Geschiedenis van de Nederlanden", by Blom et al. is a currently used textbook. Using current sources is very important, because history is rewritten all the time, as a result of new sources becoming available, etcetera. Some of the assertions made in this article are also a bit dated, I think...

3) Very little reference is made to technical innovations during the fighting. Especially considering the current title, I'd say that something should be said about Maurice and his innovations, as well as the general trends of the so-called Military Revolution (or Military Revolutions) which Maurice was an excellent example of. Unfortunately the article on -that- topic is sketchy at best...

Those are the three things that immediately strike me, as a history student (my specialty is military history, which falls under Dutch history). If I can find the time, I'll be back from time to time to look in on this, but I'm afraid I'll be busy for the time being at least. I'm trying to obtain a degree this year... But if there are any specific questions, feel free to ask me. I'll put this page on my watch list as well. Skeptic77 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made a few relatively minor edits so far, expanding a few sections slightly and adding sources here and there. I've based myself mostly on classes I've attended and on books in my own collection (which mostly amounts to the same thing). Unfortunately (in this case) I don't have Parker's book, so I can't really use that unless I get it from a University library. I must say that adding references in this way is total bollocks imho as nobody seems to go to the trouble of actually mentioning pagenumbers, thereby rendering the references pretty much useless. "Look it up, its somewhere in that 750-page book" is not very helpful and would get me kicked out of University. Heck, it almost did... ;)


 * Feel free to comment on my edits, btw. As with all history writing, there's always room for dissent. ;) Skeptic77 22:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks looks good. You can add the page of the book if you have a look at Citation templates how to. A definite difference between my field (applied psychology) and history apparently. We are only expected to give a page number for a direct quote. Actually that's why I asked you to help, I only picked up Geyl at a cheap book fair and have a very limited library on Dutch history for the rest. Arnoutf 01:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In history writing, when you make a claim (any kind of claim) you need to substantiate it by referring to a source, with a pagenumber, so others can verify your claim. Yes, I was confused by this and ended up looking it up. Seems to me most Wikipedians just don't go to the trouble of adding page numbers, but I'll try to do so from now on. After all, it's good practice. ;) But it may be difficult for paragraphs which contain condensed information, as you would then need to refer to various pages in just a few sentences, making it harder to read.


 * As noted before, Geyl is probably too dated, I'll ask one of my teachers sometime if he's still considered to be a reliable source. Probably, at least up to a point, but it would still be best to use a more recent book (Parker), if just because more recent sources include recent advancements in history writing. Skeptic77 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, I make sure that if I use Geyl it will be for fairly trivial facts (dates of birth or death and alike). More elaborate arguments can be reserved for modern sources. Oh and the condensed paragraph thing is probably why in my field just title reference is accepted, I will start adding pagenumbers though to get it consistent. Arnoutf 13:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That would certainly help to set a high standard for this page, by making it conform to the requirements set for history writing. I'll see if I can help out as well, but I'm already spending a bit too much time on this, so I can't promise anything. Skeptic77 13:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Arms and Tactics
What kind of weapons and strategies were employed in the war? Maybe this should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bentobias (talk • contribs)


 * Perhaps, but this may not be easy as there were actually a lot. From sword, siege engines, early fire arms. Tactics - open warfare, guerilla, sea-battle, siege, etc. PS please add new comment at the backArnoutf 12:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)