Talk:Patriottentijd

Patriots

Were the Dutch Patriots part of a wider world movement with the Irish, British and Americans?

Title/scope

Would it not make sense to deal with the wider aspects of the Patriots (the effects, legacy etc.) in an article of wider scope? The term "Pattriottentijd" has some currency to deal with the entire period. Would this not be a more logical title here too? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed re-write of the article

The article currently is a translation of the article Patriotten on te Dutch wikipedia, and then only of part of that article. Apparently only the book by Kossman has been used as a source, though the book by Simon Schama Patriots and Liberators is mentioned as "further reading", though this would be a much better source. I think the current article (also because it is so rudimentary and is rightly evaluated as only "start-class") does not give a good summary of the relevant historiography, both Dutch and Anglophone. The title is also very unfortunate, as Patriottentijd is a historiographical term of art for the historical era in which the Patriot Revolution in the Netherlands (which would be a better title) took place. But I think it would be too radical a change to change that title, in view of the many wikilinks that would have to be changed. I propose therefore to rewrite the article, based on a broader spectrum of the relevant historiography, which will take some time. I will start by putting in a new "sources" section, to be used in the references, and then rewrite the article section by section, starting with the "roots" of the Patriot Revolution (the perceived decline of the Dutch Republic; the frustration with the undemocratic institutions of that Republic; the influence of democratic and Enlightenment ideas from abroad, especially in the context of the American Revolution and the American propaganda in the Republic; and the feelings of military humiliation the mishandling of the Fourth Anglo-Dutch War generated). Then Van der Capellen and his seminal pamphlet Aan het Volk van Nederland should be introduced with the influence he had, especially the rise of the exercitiegenootschappen and the way they became a Movement. Then this movement produced a number of important ideological documents, like the 1784 Acte van Verbintenis (Act of Agreement); the Leiden Draft etc. Then the "heating up" of the strife with the 1785 revolts in Utrecht, Overijssel and Holland, and the counter movements in Gelderland (Hattem events) and Zeeland; the taking over of the city governments of a number of cities by the democratic Patriots (and the consequent breach with the old Dutch States Party Regenten), the dismantling of the stadtholderate by the States of Holland and the stadtholder's "exile" to Gelderland; the provocation of Princess Wilhelmina's journey to Holland that ended in Goejanverwellesluis; and the final crisis that brought about Prussian intervention and the suppression of the Patriot city governments and provincial States. In the latter section the foreign intervention (the role of the British ambassador and the French should be explained here) should be given its due. Finally, in an epilogue the French exile of the Patriot leaders and their role in the French Revolution should be mentioned as well as their return in 1795 and the Batavian Revolution Please bear with me until I have finished the rewrite.--Ereunetes (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Mercenary Army

@Ereunetes Why don't we call the navy a mercenary navy? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

A good question. I would be all in favor. But I don't make the naming conventions, unfortunately. If you want to say that the Dutch Republic's navy (Staatse vloot) was largely manned by foreign mercenaries in the period of the Patriottentijd, you are completely correct. This contributed mightily to the fiascoes of the Batavian navy. Ereunetes (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

@Ereunetes Well it continues the myth of the foreign army and Dutch navy.

to quote an article of Miggelbrink: "The mercenary soldier was transformed into a professional soldier in the Dutch army under the direct control of their commanders and the States General. From the 17th century onwards, he received a regular payment and often settled in the Republic for a long period, creating a life for himself. Therefore, it would be more accurate in the 17th century to speak of foreign professional soldiers instead of using the term ‘mercenaries’. The seasonal soldier who received pay for one or more campaigns and who offered his services to whoever was willing to pay had disappeared and was replaced by the professional soldier who signed up for a longer period, even for life. Zwitzer states that “ever since the introduction of the military reforms (attributed to Maurice, but mostly accomplished through the encouragement of his cousin William-Louis), it had been too costly to discard the trained soldiers after the conclusion of the campaigning season.” 15 Similarly, according to Maarten Prak, there has been a misconception about the professional soldier who has often been wrongly classified as a mercenary. These soldiers were no mere adventurers, but men who had made a profession out of soldiering. “Their service was anything but temporary; they often served for many years, got married and lived as regular people in the garrison towns in which they were stationed.”

Secondly, it is inaccurate to refer to the Dutch army exclusively as an army of foreign soldiers. Although, relatively speaking, the Dutch employed more foreign soldiers than most other countries in early modem Europe, the majority of soldiers were Dutch and not foreign. In the year 1635, for example, the overall strength o f the Dutch army was 79,245 soldiers; there were 228 foreign companies comprising 31,690 soldiers and 322 Dutch companies of 47,555 soldiers. Relatively speaking, the foreign soldiers comprised roughly forty percent of the Dutch army, while the percentage of Dutch troops in the Dutch army was sixty percent. Additionally, the usage of foreign soldiers was a widespread practice not only limited to the Dutch Republic, but also existed in other European states and the Ottoman Empire.

...

Furthermore, the “national” element of the Dutch navy (both military and commercial) was just as strongly undermined by the numerous foreigners who were employed as sailors as was in the army"

I don't think it is neccecary to put mercenary in front of the army if we don't do it for the navy. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 08:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I think you are so right in all respects (says my former Dutch self), but as a US citizen I have become used to Anglophone historiography, and I do no longer necessarily deprecate the word "merdenary" (in the sense that "huurling" has become deprecated in Dutch). The Spaniards could complain when we call the Army of Flanders a bunch of Spanish mercenaries, but I haven't heard them complain yet (though I don't know what they say on the Spanish Wikipedia). My advice: try to look at it through an Anglophone pair of glasses (my first Batavism of the day :-), as you are writing for an Anglophone audience. It is not just a difference in language, but also a cultural difference, and a difference in historiographical experience. So, if you want to write "mercenary navy" "go your gang" (another Batavism); I won't start an edit war over it. But others mkight take umbrage. Ereunetes (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)