Talk:Second Anglo–Dutch War

Contradictions with Four Days Battle
"The result was the Four Days Battle, one of the longest naval engagements in history. Despite administrative and logistic difficulties, a fleet of eighty ships under General at Sea George Monck, the Commonwealth veteran, (after the Duke of Albemarle) set sail at the end of May 1666."

However, the battlebox of Four Days Battle says the English had 79 ships.

"...Albemarle came upon De Ruyter's fleet of 85 ships at anchor..."

On the other hand, according to the battlebox of Four Days Battle, the Dutch had 84 ships

"At daylight on 2 June, Albemarle's strength was reduced to 44 ships..."

He started with 60 ships (the total 80 minus the 20 Prince Rupert took). This means that 60 - 44 = 16 ships were lost. However, according to the battlebox of Four Days Battle, the English only lost 10 ships. This article also says that

"The battle ended with both sides claiming victory: the English because they contended Dutch Lieutenant Admiral Michiel de Ruyter had retreated first, the Dutch because they had inflicted much greater losses on the English, who lost ten ships against the Dutch four."

Possibly some of the 16 ships were damaged rather than sunk but if so, this should be specified both in the battlebox and in the paragraph speaking about the reduction to 44

Top.Squark (talk) 13:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The mention of eighty ships is meant to be a general indication. Fleets had a number of secondary warships such as galliots, advice yachts and fireships, so its hard to be accurate. The reduction of Albemarle's strength indeed included ships retreated from the battle. If the damage was too severe, ships were sent home.--MWAK (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Please explain - how could this war end in a decisive victory for Dutch if there were no major political and economical gains for them? I agree it was their victory, more or less, in purely warfare sense. But political stalemate. I may be wrong, of course. Feanfox (talk) 13:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The point is that the English tried to take over Dutch trade and colonies and reduce the Dutch Republic to a secondary power. It was not some minor skirmish with limited war aims but an attempt to gain World Trade Dominance, to replace the Dutch as the movers and shakers (or, if you like, wheelers and dealers :o) of global finance and trade. To prevent this from happening was a major victory for the Dutch.--MWAK (talk) 13:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)