Talk:John Maurice, Prince of Nassau-Siegen

Untitled
"In Brazilian history books he is usually called Prince Maurits, although he was not a prince."


 * 1) He was Prince of Nassau-Siegen since 1679.
 * 2) I doubt that Brazilian books call him Prins Maurits, since Prince is "príncipe" and Maurice is "Maurício" in Portuguese. Känsterle 13:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (1) What do you mean by "since 1679"? According to the article, he died in December 1679. So do you mean "in 1679", or are you referring to another Maurice?
 * (2) Probably true.
 * I suggest something like: "In history books, he is often referred to as Prince Maurits, even though he obtained that title on ...., only X months before his death."
 * There are enough google hits on "prince of nassau-siegen" to make it true in English as well. Eugene van der Pijll 13:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (1): I'm sorry, I meant since 1652. Känsterle 15:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * OK thanks. If you insert that into the article, you can remove the "Brazilian history books"-sentence. -- Eugene van der Pijll 15:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Maurice, Prince of Nassau-Siegen. 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/20160303204718/http://www.colonialvoyage.com/dutchchile.html to http://www.colonialvoyage.com/dutchchile.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) 10:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Article title
The literature on this historical figure doe NOT call him John Maurice. Most scholars writing in English call him Johan Maurits van Naussau-Sigen, in the Dutch fashion. I urge that it be re-titled that, since his most important contributions relate to his time in Dutch Brazil.Amuseclio (talk) 18:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)Amuseclio

part by anonymous user
I deleted the part on slavery: the sources were not good enough to use: some did not show relevance to the prince, others were disputed by other reputable historians, and others simply did not support the claims in the text. Moreover, it was inserted by an anonymous user, making the inserted even more questionable. Jeff5102 (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Removing all reference to the fact that the Prince's colonial expeditions were, as typical at that time, engaged in African slave trade which benefitted Dutch enterprises and/or Johan Maurits himself biases the article somewhat in favor of a historical perspective of benign European commercialism. While I don't see evidence that he was harsher than usual at the time in his practices, omitting reference thereto seems like whitewashing. The fact that the contributing editor has a focus on the slave trade, was anonymous, or that some of his cited sources may have been imperfect or contradicted by others (whom?) does not obliterate all value in the info added. Rather, additional sourced info should be added to contextualize the Prince's slave trafficking activity. FactStraight (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Edits 3-5-2019
I altered the text on the construction of Mauritsstad and the role of Post. There is no evidence that Post was in fact involved in the plans. I also edited a small section on slavery and the slave trade. Since the whole purpose of the colony was to cultivate sugar with unfree labour. It is very strange to leave this out. Also, there is plenty of good evidence for slavery at the court of Johan Maurits. I have added a link to an archival document. Also changed the title of the book by Boxer in the reading suggestions to The Dutch in Brazil, since the title that was given The Golden Age of Brazil, 1695-1750 does not actually cover the Dutch period.


 * The role of Post was solidly sourced by the Encyclopedia Brittannica. The archival document is not sufficient; we need some secondary source for that, or else it is a violation of the WP:OR-rule. Thus. I had no choice to revert the changes. Jeff5102 (talk) 09:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

misc comments of previous posts
I am new. I have some knowledge of the History of Colonial Pernambuco and a bit less on the Dutch in Pernambuco. After noting that the History of Pernambuco article had been mostly neglected since about 2014, I have just been having a go at editing it. So far no one is flaming me. I see someone has posted here last year, so... Some comments on the comments on this talk page. Confirm that Johan Maurits was made a prince late in his life. He did not have the title when in Brazil. Yes, he is commonly called Prince retrospectively regardless of when he got the title. Don’t know much about the expedition to Chile except that it was abandoned after they screwed up relations with the indigenous tribes. In history books it is usually little more than a footnote. Wikipedia may be the only place that Johan Maurits is called John Maurice. C. R. Boxer discusses Maurits actions on slavery in The Dutch in Brazil. Maurits sent expeditions to Sao Jorge and Luanda to secure slaves for Dutch Brazil. This is probably a couple of degrees more important than the expedition to Chile. Frans and Pieter Post were brothers, (ref Boxer’s The Dutch in Brazil, p 113) Frans went to Brazil, he was an artist. Pieter was an architect, Pieter did design a building for Maurits, in Europe. I am fairly certain he did not go to Brazil.P2dwight (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Was he jewish?
The surname Maurice is a jewish surname so was this person a jew? 50.45.17.183 (talk) 11:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)