-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I suppose France was a third-rate country. They just explored a great part of what is Canada and USA now
R.F.
What people usually forget is that Holland in that time was not a country, but a republic with 7 different provinces, who were more or autonomous. Large parts were still catholic (as it is today). In the province of Holland the government itself was not wery much concerned with religion as with trade and when you want to trade with other religion it helps if you tolerate their religion. The conflict referred to was not really a religious conflict, but a conflict of power in which it was used as a tool.
But on the whole you could say that Holland (especially Amsterdam) was very tolerant and therefore attracted a lot of religious minorities from Spain, France and even England, which gave an enormous boost to economy and science.
Great thread!
There is no doubt, that national history teaching is influenced greatly by current state religion, political system etc. I would be greatly surprised if any of all you americans in the forum told me you received non-biased history lessons on the Soviet Union when you went to school!
As a dane both the American Civil War and the prominent dutch part in world history has been a part of my school curiculum. The dutch greatly influenced danish history during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. In fact the cultural style of the period is called 'the dutch renaissance'!!! The dutch traders pushed out the Hansa and took control over the Baltic trade, becomming also a major power in the regular danish-swedish wars. The english and dutch wished to avoid the heavy taxes on shipping through the Øresund, so it was partly they, who avoided Sweden more or less annexing Denmark in the eighteenth century. They wanted to avoid either Denmark or Sweden controlling both coastlines.
The American Civil War is in Denmark part of general teaching on our Big Brother in the NATO Alliance. The United States is an important ally - so teaching on the US is quite good. (Although biased) Teaching on the Soviet Union on the other hand was not so good.
Apart from obligatory teaching on the grand DANISH viking empire, that covered most of Scandinavia and Britain, danish history teaching does not tend to enlarge danish efforts. This may be surprising to most other nationals, but danes do not like to be better than anyone else!
Danish national identity is heavily influenced by the military losses to Germany (especially those in the nineteenth century !) Our national identity is almost pacifistic. A great example is the danish reaction to Hitler Germany. Not much official fighting there! If it hadn't been for communist and right-wing opposition and resistance movements, Denmark probably would have been considered a German puppet and ally after the war. We are not teached about danish military glory in schools (apart from the teaching on the viking era), but rather about the special danish national consciousness. Our nordic compassion etc. - especially in connection to our proclamed excellent welfare system. There is large system-preservation and glorification in Denmark as well as in all other countries. It is thus a big surprise to most danes everytime it becomes evident that we do not in fact have the best medical care in the world, and that care for old people etc. is actually better elsewhere. The myth-building about the danish/nordic way is very strong.
This goes a long way in explaining our ambivalent relationship towards the European Union as well. We don't mind the economic cooperation, but do not want to be ruled by central and southern europeans, who do things the wrong way. To a large extent, this fear of foreigners also clouds domestic debates. Agitation against admission of refugees is very popular - even among socialdemocrats - in Denmark. It doesn't sit well with our own image of danes as the most tolerant people in the world, though!
Enough about Denmark for now. How is history tought in your countries?
(This is a wonderful thread - keep it rolling)
There is no doubt, that national history teaching is influenced greatly by current state religion, political system etc. I would be greatly surprised if any of all you americans in the forum told me you received non-biased history lessons on the Soviet Union when you went to school!
As a dane both the American Civil War and the prominent dutch part in world history has been a part of my school curiculum. The dutch greatly influenced danish history during the sixteenth and seventeenth century. In fact the cultural style of the period is called 'the dutch renaissance'!!! The dutch traders pushed out the Hansa and took control over the Baltic trade, becomming also a major power in the regular danish-swedish wars. The english and dutch wished to avoid the heavy taxes on shipping through the Øresund, so it was partly they, who avoided Sweden more or less annexing Denmark in the eighteenth century. They wanted to avoid either Denmark or Sweden controlling both coastlines.
The American Civil War is in Denmark part of general teaching on our Big Brother in the NATO Alliance. The United States is an important ally - so teaching on the US is quite good. (Although biased) Teaching on the Soviet Union on the other hand was not so good.
Apart from obligatory teaching on the grand DANISH viking empire, that covered most of Scandinavia and Britain, danish history teaching does not tend to enlarge danish efforts. This may be surprising to most other nationals, but danes do not like to be better than anyone else!
Danish national identity is heavily influenced by the military losses to Germany (especially those in the nineteenth century !) Our national identity is almost pacifistic. A great example is the danish reaction to Hitler Germany. Not much official fighting there! If it hadn't been for communist and right-wing opposition and resistance movements, Denmark probably would have been considered a German puppet and ally after the war. We are not teached about danish military glory in schools (apart from the teaching on the viking era), but rather about the special danish national consciousness. Our nordic compassion etc. - especially in connection to our proclamed excellent welfare system. There is large system-preservation and glorification in Denmark as well as in all other countries. It is thus a big surprise to most danes everytime it becomes evident that we do not in fact have the best medical care in the world, and that care for old people etc. is actually better elsewhere. The myth-building about the danish/nordic way is very strong.
This goes a long way in explaining our ambivalent relationship towards the European Union as well. We don't mind the economic cooperation, but do not want to be ruled by central and southern europeans, who do things the wrong way. To a large extent, this fear of foreigners also clouds domestic debates. Agitation against admission of refugees is very popular - even among socialdemocrats - in Denmark. It doesn't sit well with our own image of danes as the most tolerant people in the world, though!
Enough about Denmark for now. How is history tought in your countries?
(This is a wonderful thread - keep it rolling
)
Quote of Andersen
You were the first to notice the real important attribution of the dutch. Cultural and scientific they were important. This intellectual dimension is something that is mostly underestimated. People think too much that history is politics and economics. That's not true. Political and Economical influence disappear, but culture is something that can resist the passage of time.
To show the importance of Holland I need to drop a lot of names :
Hugo de Groot: First one to use international law.
Christiaan Huygens: Wave theory of light, description of optics, inventor of the pendulum, and much much more.
Anthony van Leeuwenhoeck: discoverer of single cellulair life
Desiderius Erasmus: philosopher, editor of the first bible in the original (Aramaic) language.
Balthazar Becker: Writer of 'De betooverde wereldt':A book about superstition. Very influential in the struggle against witch-trials.
A lot of Painters: Rembrandt, Vermeer, Hals, Steen, Potter etc.
Baruch the Spinoza: In his time the énfant terrible'of philosophy, but the starter of the Enlightenment.
Jansenius: reformator, connected to Port-Royal
Geert De Groote: Spiritualist, gave importance to personal believe at the end of the 15th century. (read the Manual)
Mennon Simons: Reformed the Anabaptists into a more peaceful community
Dirk Volkertzoon Coornhert: First one to propagate a more humane treatment of criminals. creator of workplaces.
Blaeu: Carthographer
A lot of discoverers: Abel Tasman, Barendtsz, Heemskerk, van Noort
There are a lot more 'Dutch'people who influenced European thought (I have concentrated on the 16th and 17th century). But that's not important, because, and now I'm referring to the main discussion, I didn't do what they did. I just happened to live many many years later in the same neighbourhood as they did. That's all.
You were the first to notice the real important attribution of the dutch. Cultural and scientific they were important. This intellectual dimension is something that is mostly underestimated. People think too much that history is politics and economics. That's not true. Political and Economical influence disappear, but culture is something that can resist the passage of time.
To show the importance of Holland I need to drop a lot of names
:Hugo de Groot: First one to use international law.
Christiaan Huygens: Wave theory of light, description of optics, inventor of the pendulum, and much much more.
Anthony van Leeuwenhoeck: discoverer of single cellulair life
Desiderius Erasmus: philosopher, editor of the first bible in the original (Aramaic) language.
Balthazar Becker: Writer of 'De betooverde wereldt':A book about superstition. Very influential in the struggle against witch-trials.
A lot of Painters: Rembrandt, Vermeer, Hals, Steen, Potter etc.
Baruch the Spinoza: In his time the énfant terrible'of philosophy, but the starter of the Enlightenment.
Jansenius: reformator, connected to Port-Royal
Geert De Groote: Spiritualist, gave importance to personal believe at the end of the 15th century. (read the Manual)
Mennon Simons: Reformed the Anabaptists into a more peaceful community
Dirk Volkertzoon Coornhert: First one to propagate a more humane treatment of criminals. creator of workplaces.
Blaeu: Carthographer
A lot of discoverers: Abel Tasman, Barendtsz, Heemskerk, van Noort
There are a lot more 'Dutch'people who influenced European thought (I have concentrated on the 16th and 17th century). But that's not important, because, and now I'm referring to the main discussion, I didn't do what they did. I just happened to live many many years later in the same neighbourhood as they did. That's all.
O, yes they were there, even with some fishermans ships which were stil quite succesfull
Polish History.
We are the best. Most heroic solders on the planet. Smartest, very well educated and always sold out or attached by others.
We stopped German empire for few hundred years in its eastward expansion. We stopped Mongols from invading Europe after Kiev Russia collapsed. We saved HRE emperor and rest of Europe from Turkish slavery in the battle of Vienna. We were paid for it by Austrian and Prussian occupation for 123 years. We were the most tolerant nation in Europe having Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic and Muslim religion. The Ukrainian rebellion was do to Turkish Sultan expansion and stupid Ukrainian peasants that helped. Swedish attack at that time was a stab in the back for with it paid later. We were second democracy after US. And we were the first ones were attacked by hateful and aggressive German Nazis. And than we were sold out to the Soviets by the west.
US Civil war- who cares about that.
100 year war- too long to really talk about it.
Spain exploration of America.- Cortes and Pizaro the rest dose not count.
Napoleon.- A hero for poor Poland.
WW2 - is all German fault.
Polish partition-is all German and Russian fault
bed polish economy now- is all communist fault.
The fact that it was Polish inability to rule themselves. The bad adittude towards minorities (Ukrainians and otters). Elective Kings that sucked @$$. Very poor aditude towards other countries and no economic innovation ......
ALL THESE FACTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!! WE ARE THE BEST, WE KNOW BETTER.
I hope this will put some light on our view of history.
We are the best. Most heroic solders on the planet. Smartest, very well educated and always sold out or attached by others.
We stopped German empire for few hundred years in its eastward expansion. We stopped Mongols from invading Europe after Kiev Russia collapsed. We saved HRE emperor and rest of Europe from Turkish slavery in the battle of Vienna. We were paid for it by Austrian and Prussian occupation for 123 years. We were the most tolerant nation in Europe having Orthodox, Protestant, Catholic and Muslim religion. The Ukrainian rebellion was do to Turkish Sultan expansion and stupid Ukrainian peasants that helped. Swedish attack at that time was a stab in the back for with it paid later. We were second democracy after US. And we were the first ones were attacked by hateful and aggressive German Nazis. And than we were sold out to the Soviets by the west.
US Civil war- who cares about that.
100 year war- too long to really talk about it.
Spain exploration of America.- Cortes and Pizaro the rest dose not count.
Napoleon.- A hero for poor Poland.
WW2 - is all German fault.
Polish partition-is all German and Russian fault
bed polish economy now- is all communist fault.
The fact that it was Polish inability to rule themselves. The bad adittude towards minorities (Ukrainians and otters). Elective Kings that sucked @$$. Very poor aditude towards other countries and no economic innovation ......
ALL THESE FACTS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH IT!!!!!!!! WE ARE THE BEST, WE KNOW BETTER.
I hope this will put some light on our view of history.
Re: Re: Was Holland a major power?
There was already a reference to the internal religious strife in Holland during the '80-jarige oorlog'. It happened during a 12-year long armistice. So the republic was still at war with Catholic Spain and still they thought this internal religious strife about predestination more important than existence as a free state.
No, I think it is the other way around. When it comes to ideology, and religion is an ideology. It is easier to tolerate a opinion that doesn't look like your's than one that does. F.i. a dutch expression of the dutch revolt was : Liever Turks dan Paaps wich means rather a subject of the Ottoman Empire (muslims) than subject of the Pope. Other examples: Before 1933 the socialists and communists in Germany were fighting each other more than the National-socialists.
There was already a reference to the internal religious strife in Holland during the '80-jarige oorlog'. It happened during a 12-year long armistice. So the republic was still at war with Catholic Spain and still they thought this internal religious strife about predestination more important than existence as a free state.
The Swedish history education is much the same,just delete danish in your sentence "DANISH viking history" and change all other referces to danish to swedish. Oh and debating the admission of foreigners are not pouplar in Sweden.Originally posted by Andersen
...
Apart from obligatory teaching on the grand DANISH viking empire, that covered most of Scandinavia and Britain, danish history teaching does not tend to enlarge danish efforts. This may be surprising to most other nationals, but danes do not like to be better than anyone else!
Danish national identity is heavily influenced by the military losses to Germany (especially those in the nineteenth century !) Our national identity is almost pacifistic. A great example is the danish reaction to Hitler Germany. Not much official fighting there! If it hadn't been for communist and right-wing opposition and resistance movements, Denmark probably would have been considered a German puppet and ally after the war. We are not teached about danish military glory in schools (apart from the teaching on the viking era), but rather about the special danish national consciousness. Our nordic compassion etc. - especially in connection to our proclamed excellent welfare system. There is large system-preservation and glorification in Denmark as well as in all other countries. It is thus a big surprise to most danes everytime it becomes evident that we do not in fact have the best medical care in the world, and that care for old people etc. is actually better elsewhere. The myth-building about the danish/nordic way is very strong.
This goes a long way in explaining our ambivalent relationship towards the European Union as well. We don't mind the economic cooperation, but do not want to be ruled by central and southern europeans, who do things the wrong way. To a large extent, this fear of foreigners also clouds domestic debates. Agitation against admission of refugees is very popular - even among socialdemocrats - in Denmark. It doesn't sit well with our own image of danes as the most tolerant people in the world, though!
Enough about Denmark for now. How is history tought in your countries?
(This is a wonderful thread - keep it rolling
That most swedes on this forum seeems fascinated and knowledgable of the swedish "greatpower period" has less to do with the school system than the fact that most swedes with a interest of history do find that fascinating.
I am still following the discussion, and I still think it is interesting. Just keep the history coming. Both kinds, the written and the true history.
The danish and polish contributions are good ones. The polish ( by Pomerania prince), because i actually never learned anything about it ( shame on me).
The danish,( by Andersen), because it is so true. I have a hard time telling my danish friends, that Denmark is a great country, but not perfekt. I can show them now, that I am not the only one here (in DK), that has his eyes open.
The danish and polish contributions are good ones. The polish ( by Pomerania prince), because i actually never learned anything about it ( shame on me).
The danish,( by Andersen), because it is so true. I have a hard time telling my danish friends, that Denmark is a great country, but not perfekt. I can show them now, that I am not the only one here (in DK), that has his eyes open.
Just a comment
To answer the question whether Holland was a superpower or not. Just play the game.. I think the balance of power is quite right in the game. From the moment Holland gained its independence (tell this Spanish dad that Dutch speak Dutch and don't speak Spanish (besides cerveca beer eheh .. ) and therefore would have gained independence someday.
evenso holland had only few provences to begin with they were all high income and compared to its neigbours lots of inhabitants. Therefore making it a medium country to begin with. The formidable Duthc navy expanded colonies quite impressive.. Controlling the rich indonesia
I've played the dutch GC several times and i think its not that hard to kick the spanish out of holland.. bigger problem we're (also in true history) the French battling with the Dutch for the control of the rich centre of trade of Flandres..
Sure Holland wasn't the power France, England or Spain was but a lot of formidable admirals and generals kept the existence of Holland a fact.
One more thing.. the Dutch national anthem still mentions loyaltie to the king of Spain, not that it means anything to us.. but maybe to the broken Spanish hearts
Oranje Boven!
To answer the question whether Holland was a superpower or not. Just play the game.. I think the balance of power is quite right in the game. From the moment Holland gained its independence (tell this Spanish dad that Dutch speak Dutch and don't speak Spanish (besides cerveca
beer eheh .. ) and therefore would have gained independence someday. evenso holland had only few provences to begin with they were all high income and compared to its neigbours lots of inhabitants. Therefore making it a medium country to begin with. The formidable Duthc navy expanded colonies quite impressive.. Controlling the rich indonesia
I've played the dutch GC several times and i think its not that hard to kick the spanish out of holland.. bigger problem we're (also in true history) the French battling with the Dutch for the control of the rich centre of trade of Flandres..
Sure Holland wasn't the power France, England or Spain was but a lot of formidable admirals and generals kept the existence of Holland a fact.
One more thing.. the Dutch national anthem still mentions loyaltie to the king of Spain, not that it means anything to us.. but maybe to the broken Spanish hearts
Oranje Boven!
Last edited:
The defeat of the Spanish Armada by the English with a little help from the Duitch, was due to three factors:
1) The English (and Dutch) ships were lighter, more manoeuvrable, and with longer-range guns. this meant that they coulds stand off and pound the Spanish ships, then escape if things looked like getting tricky.
2) Superior tactics of the English. Once the Spanish fleet reached Sluis in Flanders, Sir Francis Drake sent in fire-ships. The tide and winds meant that it proved difficult for the Spanish to escape the coast.
3) The weather. Once the Spanish fleet could flee north around the British Isles, it had to face the terrible storms, which led to the wreck of many of the ships.
1) The English (and Dutch) ships were lighter, more manoeuvrable, and with longer-range guns. this meant that they coulds stand off and pound the Spanish ships, then escape if things looked like getting tricky.
2) Superior tactics of the English. Once the Spanish fleet reached Sluis in Flanders, Sir Francis Drake sent in fire-ships. The tide and winds meant that it proved difficult for the Spanish to escape the coast.
3) The weather. Once the Spanish fleet could flee north around the British Isles, it had to face the terrible storms, which led to the wreck of many of the ships.
Andersen is pretty much right about the Danes don't really pretend to be/have been a great power, except taking credit for everything the Vikings did (WE discovered America, WE discovered Greenland etc.).
BUT, I did find one example of a defeat being turned to us almost winning: The Battle of Rheden. (The battle with Nelson, that have been mentioned before.)
In Danish history it sounds like we almost won it, we just got a bad start, because the english attacked us when our entire navy were in the harbor. And the only reason we signed a peace treaty, was that the Russian Czar had just died.
BUT, I did find one example of a defeat being turned to us almost winning: The Battle of Rheden. (The battle with Nelson, that have been mentioned before.)
In Danish history it sounds like we almost won it, we just got a bad start, because the english attacked us when our entire navy were in the harbor. And the only reason we signed a peace treaty, was that the Russian Czar had just died.
It would be very un-marxist to state that this whole dutch independence is a big coincidence caused by the fact that the monarch of Spain and the Netherlands prefered living in Madrid to Brussels.
we tend to project concepts of today into the past, like the state-ideas of now (Spain, Netherlands) which is wrong.
Again: The Netherlands weren't "occupied" by Spain in the 16th century although EU and historybooks at school suggest otherwise. There were two seperate territories that came under the same monarch after dynastic marriages that combined Castilia+Aragon (which became Spain), Netherlands(=Bourgondy)+HRE and finally Spain-HRE (and here HRE included the Netherlands).
The whole idea of "dynastic coincidences" is represented well in EU, i'm currently playing Gelre/Netherlands in the special campaign game scenario...but at around 1610 France and Austria combined dynastically and they now walk around the map of Europe with some 100K armies sending my 10k armies to cyberheaven.
we tend to project concepts of today into the past, like the state-ideas of now (Spain, Netherlands) which is wrong.
Again: The Netherlands weren't "occupied" by Spain in the 16th century although EU and historybooks at school suggest otherwise. There were two seperate territories that came under the same monarch after dynastic marriages that combined Castilia+Aragon (which became Spain), Netherlands(=Bourgondy)+HRE and finally Spain-HRE (and here HRE included the Netherlands).
The whole idea of "dynastic coincidences" is represented well in EU, i'm currently playing Gelre/Netherlands in the special campaign game scenario...but at around 1610 France and Austria combined dynastically and they now walk around the map of Europe with some 100K armies sending my 10k armies to cyberheaven.
Well, I have to quote Napoleon on this one:
"History is a lie agreed upon" which I think fits pretty good here.
I have to admit that the history classes I've went to are gloryfying (sp?) sweden a little. In the northern war frex I had never heard that Russians were burning lots of citys along the coast of Sweden. And the victory at Narva was made a lot bigger than it really was... I think. Likewise with the time after Poltava. History books says if Karl XII did that and that we would have still won the battle and the entire war bla bla bla... I don't believe that really. Some thousands of exhausted swedes, finnies (sp?) and germans against a humongous russian army... I know who my money would have been on...
But of course everything is not a lie or total gloryfying (sp?). Everything that Andersen said is completely true, AFAIK. Everytime the danish or the swedish ruler wanted to declare war against the other (and it was a lot of times, believe me...) they had to take Holland and England into consideration. If any of them interfered on the otherside, they were lost. Pretty hard situation for the ruler.
Luckily it's vice versa when I'm playing Sweden in EU... England and Holland are afraid of me, he he he.
BTW excellent thread!
RL14
"History is a lie agreed upon" which I think fits pretty good here.
I have to admit that the history classes I've went to are gloryfying (sp?) sweden a little. In the northern war frex I had never heard that Russians were burning lots of citys along the coast of Sweden. And the victory at Narva was made a lot bigger than it really was... I think. Likewise with the time after Poltava. History books says if Karl XII did that and that we would have still won the battle and the entire war bla bla bla... I don't believe that really. Some thousands of exhausted swedes, finnies (sp?) and germans against a humongous russian army... I know who my money would have been on...
But of course everything is not a lie or total gloryfying (sp?). Everything that Andersen said is completely true, AFAIK. Everytime the danish or the swedish ruler wanted to declare war against the other (and it was a lot of times, believe me...) they had to take Holland and England into consideration. If any of them interfered on the otherside, they were lost. Pretty hard situation for the ruler.
Luckily it's vice versa when I'm playing Sweden in EU... England and Holland are afraid of me, he he he.
BTW excellent thread!
RL14
Continuing on a tangent..
To continue on that polish history track.. what's with them poles celebrating that battle of Liegnitz (the saving of Europe thing). As far as the general consensus among historians goes, the whole thing was merely a strategic diversion by Subotai & Co , ie. the mongols wanted to cover their northern flank while they carve their way through hungary/magyar, which culminated at the battle of Mohi Heath.
Of course the whole Mongol problem pretty much went away shortly afterwards when Ogodei Khan died and the armies were recalled. The end result of course was one more polish national celebration day and a wide swath of destroyed countryside in east-central Europe.
PS. And for the military history aficionados, check some details about Subotai's career, as well as that battle of Mohi Heath. A smart fellow, played a nasty psychological trick on the hungarians: basicly an encirclement battle with mongols on the outside, so Subotai increased the pressure on the folks on the inside and then opened a small gap into the ring. Which led to a couple things a) morale crumbled on the inside when people start fleeing through the hole. b) people died on the outside when mongols started skirmishing and fell on the flanks of the column escaping through the said opening.
To continue on that polish history track.. what's with them poles celebrating that battle of Liegnitz (the saving of Europe thing). As far as the general consensus among historians goes, the whole thing was merely a strategic diversion by Subotai & Co , ie. the mongols wanted to cover their northern flank while they carve their way through hungary/magyar, which culminated at the battle of Mohi Heath.
Of course the whole Mongol problem pretty much went away shortly afterwards when Ogodei Khan died and the armies were recalled. The end result of course was one more polish national celebration day and a wide swath of destroyed countryside in east-central Europe.
PS. And for the military history aficionados, check some details about Subotai's career, as well as that battle of Mohi Heath. A smart fellow, played a nasty psychological trick on the hungarians: basicly an encirclement battle with mongols on the outside, so Subotai increased the pressure on the folks on the inside and then opened a small gap into the ring. Which led to a couple things a) morale crumbled on the inside when people start fleeing through the hole. b) people died on the outside when mongols started skirmishing and fell on the flanks of the column escaping through the said opening.
There's too much questions... I'm going to answer to some of them while I still remember them...
From a french point of view :
-The netherlands : I'm checking an history book for 13 y.o. pubils (covering exactly the same period than EU) and though less than, say, england, the netherland are quite often mentionned. It's usually viewed as a an important power, due to its wealth and though not a major military power, a country which managed to have a huge diplomatic influence. Certainly not considered like, say, some obscure german kingdom. But it's somewhat peculiar since it's a "short-term" major power. It appears lately, plays an important part in european affairs then fades away. I would compare its historical importance with Portugal, for instance, which in the same way, appears in the history books as a major power for some time and then isn't mentionned any more.
About some specific points : I didn't know the Netherlands had something to do with the Armada...But anyway, though the armada is briefly mentionned in history books, it's not an event considered as much important from a french point of view. Concerning, tolerance, yes, I remember having been taught that a lot of authors seek refuge in the netherlands, had their books printed there, etc...I believe this fact is aknowledged here.
By the way, in another BG made by the author of EU, and covering a shorter period (roughly 1650-1789), called "Grand Siecle", the Netherlands appear as one of the major powers.
From a french point of view :
-The netherlands : I'm checking an history book for 13 y.o. pubils (covering exactly the same period than EU) and though less than, say, england, the netherland are quite often mentionned. It's usually viewed as a an important power, due to its wealth and though not a major military power, a country which managed to have a huge diplomatic influence. Certainly not considered like, say, some obscure german kingdom. But it's somewhat peculiar since it's a "short-term" major power. It appears lately, plays an important part in european affairs then fades away. I would compare its historical importance with Portugal, for instance, which in the same way, appears in the history books as a major power for some time and then isn't mentionned any more.
About some specific points : I didn't know the Netherlands had something to do with the Armada...But anyway, though the armada is briefly mentionned in history books, it's not an event considered as much important from a french point of view. Concerning, tolerance, yes, I remember having been taught that a lot of authors seek refuge in the netherlands, had their books printed there, etc...I believe this fact is aknowledged here.
By the way, in another BG made by the author of EU, and covering a shorter period (roughly 1650-1789), called "Grand Siecle", the Netherlands appear as one of the major powers.
Last edited:
I would like to disagree with Payn. I attended high school in the state of Iowa. As most Americans know, Iowa probably has one of the best public school systems in the United States. The ACTs and ITBS is conceived and graded here. I now go to the University of Iowa. Anyways, in my high school world history class (my sophomore year) the school system, in fact, did teach us that the Dutch were a great power during the time. In fact, we did a whole unit about colonialism and we compared the Spanish, the French, the English, and the Dutch (a little less emphasis on Portugal, but still some there). So yes, some schools (states?) in America are taught about Dutch power in colonial and imperial affairs. I even remember our text book going over the Anglo-Dutch wars. I think American schools teach Dutch colonialism (and just colonialism as a whole) because it shows the impact of colonization on our country. I mean, America was founded on old colonies. So, once again, I think American high school kids are taught about Dutch power, but then they all forget it within one day after the test!
What I remember of the Dutch from public school is that they had some sort of
colonial empire, had a colony on the Hudson River in N. America, and that they were
tolerant of religious differences. The colony was lost to England (and became New York),
and the tolerance attracted Puritans, Quakers, and Anabaptists before they came over
to N. America. Things like the Revolt, the 80 Years War, the Amsterdam Exchange/Bank,
etc. I don't think got mentioned at all.
The Dutch were discussed insomuch as they affected eastern North America.
Same with the French. And Spain, too, for the most part. Although the
conquistadores and explorers got some "press". And the Armada. I seem
to remember the Armada's defeat being portrayed as a great turning point,
and some kind of triumph of British arms.
The one European nation that was prominant in what I was taught was England
(imagine that ). But even what we learned about England had to do with how it
affected America. Certain aspects of British history that did not have a major impact
on this side of the Pond (or on Shakespeare) were skipped/skimmed over.
Religion was mentioned only in the context of the Puritans, Quakers, and Anabaptists who
came to America looking for freedom of worship. Otherwise, it was pretty much ignored.
Or, perhaps more appropriately, purposefully excluded.
colonial empire, had a colony on the Hudson River in N. America, and that they were
tolerant of religious differences. The colony was lost to England (and became New York),
and the tolerance attracted Puritans, Quakers, and Anabaptists before they came over
to N. America. Things like the Revolt, the 80 Years War, the Amsterdam Exchange/Bank,
etc. I don't think got mentioned at all.
The Dutch were discussed insomuch as they affected eastern North America.
Same with the French. And Spain, too, for the most part. Although the
conquistadores and explorers got some "press". And the Armada. I seem
to remember the Armada's defeat being portrayed as a great turning point,
and some kind of triumph of British arms.
The one European nation that was prominant in what I was taught was England
(imagine that
). But even what we learned about England had to do with how itaffected America. Certain aspects of British history that did not have a major impact
on this side of the Pond (or on Shakespeare) were skipped/skimmed over.
Religion was mentioned only in the context of the Puritans, Quakers, and Anabaptists who
came to America looking for freedom of worship. Otherwise, it was pretty much ignored.
Or, perhaps more appropriately, purposefully excluded.