Talk:Hugo Grotius

Assessment comment
Substituted at 18:25, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Place of death
Rostock was never a part of swedish-pomerania - it always was the largest city in the duchy of Mecklenburg. During the 30years war it was part of the realm of Wallenstein, besieged by swedish fleets and never given up by the danish kings, who were forced to retire from their feudal claims since 1224 by the germans. To occupy or annex Rostock as a part of the swedish realm would have been a severe break from the peace of Lübeck in 1630.--77.187.249.84 (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm quite ignorant in this matter, but I find at Rostock this: "Danes and Swedes occupied the city twice, first during the Thirty Years' War ..." but I can see that that probably didn't mean that Rostock became part of Swedish Pomerania. Should the item in the infobox be changed to Mecklenburg, or Mecklenburg-Güstrow, or something else? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugo Grotius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111020053039/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/grotius.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/philosophers/grotius.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Oldenbarnevelt's Tolerance
To better understand the conflict with the States, it is good to explain exactly what Oldenbarnevelt's 'tolerance' entailed: very strict guidelines about what could be said and published about which topics and how. This would have effectively ended the free press in the Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.138.36.202 (talk • contribs) 14:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Heinlein
As currently written it sounds like Heinlein is an 18th century scholar! In addition the whole 18th century reactions section (half of which is Heinlein) doesn't really explain how he was perceived in the 18th century. Worth a rewrite by someone more skilful than I? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.8.6 (talk • contribs) 12:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)