You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Empire: Total War (Archived-See Empire: Total War Heaven)

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.40 replies
Total War Heaven » Forums » Empire: Total War (Archived-See Empire: Total War Heaven) » New faction feature: United Provinces
Bottom
Topic Subject:New faction feature: United Provinces
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
Hussarknight
Seraph Emeritus
posted 03 December 2008 13:33 EDT (US)         
Along with the minimum system requirements CA ha released a new faction feature. This time it showcases the United Provinces (aka Netherlands). Trade, science and freedom of thought have flourished here since the Spanish were driven out. The United Provinces are the worlds foremost naval power, sailing to the Caribbean and the Indies.

Read the full faction feature here and feel free to discuss it in this thread.

          Hussarknight
AuthorReplies:
Legion Of Hell
Centurion
posted 05 December 2008 11:55 EDT (US)     26 / 40       
When I think of the Dutch I think of Kor and Hussarknight fighting each other on their flagships off the coast of Holland.

General Rawlinson- This is most unsatisfactory. Where are the Sherwood Foresters? Where are the East Lancashires on the right?

Brigadier-General Oxley- They are lying out in No Man's Land, sir. And most of them will never stand again.

Two high ranking British generals discussing the fortunes of two regiments after the disastrous attack at Aubers Ridge on the 9th May 1915.
Kor
Busschof Happertesch
(id: Derfel Cadarn)
posted 10 December 2008 10:21 EDT (US)     27 / 40       
Sorry for taking my time to reply to this, I have spent the past few days reading and writing exclusively on Spinozism (another Dutch contribution to history, although I've actually cast it in a critical light) and didn't have time to check this forum. However, I can only be joyous at this most official acknowledgement of the Republic's inclusion in the game, although I fear its institutions and organisation can not be adequately remodelled by a game like ETW.
I re-read the United Provinces faction feature and I came upon this:

"A mere generation ago, the Dutch navy sailed into the Thames and burned the English fleet at anchor: this kind of bravado and expertise is not quickly forgotten,"

How in God's name did that happen???
At the time, England's navy high command was still decided by birth, with James II for example being an admiral at the time of his brother Charles II's reign (Duke James of York, after whom New York was renamed). The Dutch navy, on the other hand, was commanded on a system of merit. People could rise from relatively humble means to become admiral of the fleet. Michiel de Ruyter, who led the raid on the Medway, was an example of this: he was the son of a beer porter. This higher level of skill required among navy captains may have been one contribution to the victory; the other was the surprise and the excellent strategy, partly devised by similarly named to me Cornelis de Witt.
The Dutch were a remarkably strong naval powder in the mid-17th century (at a time when England was fairly weak), and they had a number of gifted and plucky admirals who were able to pull things like that off.
Until the 1680's they were the strongest; in that period they were replaced/eclipsed by France (surprisingly). From a situation where Dutch fleets could beat combined Anglo-Dutch fleets (Guerre de Hollande, 1672-1678) the situation changed to France being able to beat Dutch-British fleets. However, this didn't last for very long and by the late 1690's France had already halted its expensive fleet build-up in favour of an army first policy. The Dutch and British then went on par for a while, although William III in his naval policy determined that the UK would deliver (off the top of my head) 5 ships of the line for every 3 Dutch ones. This led to the eventual superiority of the British fleet, as the Dutch fleet was scaled down (also in favour of the field army, which was larger than the British one).

The omnipresence of the Dutch in naval matters is also attested by Pepys, who recorded in his diary the memorable quotation 'By God, I think the devil shits Dutchmen!'.
Didn't the Dutch burn the English navy in the 1500s, as well? They said so at Upnor Castle, which I think is on the Thames, and guards the route to London.
In the 1500's the Dutch were never at war with the English when existent as a nation (of sorts). I'm not entirely sure about the pre-Dutch Revolt Habsburg reign, but I don't think that's had any major wars with England, either. Regardless, under the Habsburgs one could not speak of the 'Dutch'.
During the famous raid on the Medway/Chatham the Dutch fleet also by-passed Upnor castle, however, so you're probably thinking of that. (This seems especially likely as Upnor castle was, according to wikipedia, not constructed until 1559.)
I expect Britain will start off with good relations towards the UP, and vice versa. Also, they will probably find a way to make it undesirable to be at war with them, since trade with Antwerp is an important factor, if not as much as it used to be with the advent of worldwide trade.
The Dutch and British will probably start off in an alliance and as trading partners. As to Antwerp, it will be a factor of no consideration at all - it wasn't actually Dutch but Spanish, but rendered economically useless because a Dutch blockade kept merchants out from 1585 (when the Spanish wrested it from the hands of the mostly protestant population) until the end of the Dutch Republic in 1795. Trade in stead moved to Amsterdam and, to a lesser extent, Rotterdam.

Interestingly, when the Belgians during their revolt against the Dutch gained full control of Antwerp (after the French captured the citadel for them in 1832), the Dutch once again wished to reinstate the old blockade, but were prevented from doing so by the major political powers of the time.
Haha, I think orange has always been affiliated with the Dutch.
It's only really affiliated with the ruling dynasty of stadholders. As a large part of the population wanted the stadholderate abolished and viewed the stadholders as corrupt and incompetent individuals, the orange sash was quite the opposite of a unifying symbol: in the 1787 Dutch Revolution the orangists, representing the conservative political factions, were temporarily ousted from power by the so-called patriots, who despised anything orange. And under Johan de Witt (brother to the earlier mentioned Cornelis de Witt) the orange sash was temporarily illegalised. Only after the institution of the Kingdom of the United Netherlands in 1815 could the orange colour grow out to represent a group of the population without enraging a similarly large group of different minded people simultaneously.

Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.
Andalus
Legionary
posted 10 December 2008 11:43 EDT (US)     28 / 40       
As to Antwerp, it will be a factor of no consideration at all - it wasn't actually Dutch but Spanish,
It was still Spanish at this time? Very well, then. My knowledge of that period is a little sketchy.
Interestingly, when the Belgians during their revolt against the Dutch gained full control of Antwerp (after the French captured the citadel for them in 1832), the Dutch once again wished to reinstate the old blockade, but were prevented from doing so by the major political powers of the time.
Ah yes, this is the infamous Treaty of London that dragged Britain in to the First World War, if I remember rightly from last year's history course. Because Britain didn't want the French to gain influence in the Low Countries, so they backed Belgium. Then the Germans turned out to be the bad guys.
Thrashmad
Legionary
posted 10 December 2008 11:48 EDT (US)     29 / 40       
'By God, I think the devil shits Dutchmen!'.

According to Wikipedia he was quoting Sir William Batten, a British navy officer.

I just realised that in this post I quote a post that is a quote from a person that quoted another person.

"The satisfaction in this game lies in to see 300 heavy armoured horsemen ride chock in an easy snowfall, while fire arrows criss-crosses the evening sky" - Swedish historian and permanent secretary of The Swedish Academy Peter Englund on Medieval 2: Total War (translated by Thrashmad)

"A game that contains both Carl Linnaeus and five different types of artillery projectiles are indisputable exceedingly detailed." - Peter Englund on Empire: Total War (translated by Thrashmad)
Legion Of Hell
Centurion
posted 10 December 2008 12:05 EDT (US)     30 / 40       
.....Which is a lot of quotes to quote!

General Rawlinson- This is most unsatisfactory. Where are the Sherwood Foresters? Where are the East Lancashires on the right?

Brigadier-General Oxley- They are lying out in No Man's Land, sir. And most of them will never stand again.

Two high ranking British generals discussing the fortunes of two regiments after the disastrous attack at Aubers Ridge on the 9th May 1915.

[This message has been edited by Legion Of Hell (edited 12-10-2008 @ 12:06 PM).]

Gallowglass
Legionary
posted 10 December 2008 13:11 EDT (US)     31 / 40       

And I would quote that. But no.

And it was actually the Serbians (or possibly the Austrians) that started the First World War, Andalus

It was us and France that started the second.

Bhutan will start the third, along with its ally, Djibouti, over disputed territory in Andorra.

------m------m------
(o o)
(~)

Monkey beats bunny. Please put Monkey in your signature to prevent the rise of bunny.
m0n|<3yz r 2 pwn n00b
Boetje
Legionary
posted 10 December 2008 13:44 EDT (US)     32 / 40       
It was still Spanish at this time? Very well, then. My knowledge of that period is a little sketchy.
the southern provinces of the Netherlands stayed spanish until (or almost) our friend Bony.

And the provinces were seven: Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland, Gelre, Friesland, Overijssel en Groningen (which was named differently). no Brabant or Vlaanderen here. they were catholic and thus the enemy.

Only after Bony we turned into a kingdom which was arranged by the british and the austrians as a buffer against "imperialist and aggresive France".

Yep, it's true, having no sig is boring. But so is this one. Which makes my point... relatively pointless.
Can a point be a point when it is pointless?

[This message has been edited by Boetje (edited 12-10-2008 @ 01:46 PM).]

Andalus
Legionary
posted 10 December 2008 14:26 EDT (US)     33 / 40       
And it was actually the Serbians (or possibly the Austrians) that started the First World War, Andalus
I do not believe I said otherwise. I said that it was the German invasion of Belgium that forced Britain to honour the Treaty of London and go to their aid, or words to that effect. And Princip was a Bosnian Serb.

[This message has been edited by Andalus (edited 12-10-2008 @ 02:54 PM).]

Woolagaroo
Legionary
posted 10 December 2008 14:41 EDT (US)     34 / 40       
I'm going to have to disagree with you Gallowglass about the Second World War. I don't know who you're referring to with "us", but it's pretty unfair to say the French started that. The onus for that war is pretty squarely on Germany.

Deutschland erwartet, dass jeder Mann seine Pflicht tun wird.
Россия ожидает, что каждый исполнит свой долг.
Kor
Busschof Happertesch
(id: Derfel Cadarn)
posted 11 December 2008 08:41 EDT (US)     35 / 40       
Ah yes, this is the infamous Treaty of London that dragged Britain in to the First World War, if I remember rightly from last year's history course. Because Britain didn't want the French to gain influence in the Low Countries, so they backed Belgium. Then the Germans turned out to be the bad guys.
It's more complicated than that - the British were concentrated on fending off future French aggression but were definitely planning against Prussian offensives, too. The Low Countries were basically the hinge on attack from France on Germany but also vice-versa, and to make the Kingdom of the Netherlands in 1815 more defensible against the Prussians, too, the British strongly supported the Dutch claim to Luxembourg, an important fortress for defence against the Germans. It was also a reason why they later insisted the reliable William I held on to Luxembourg as a separate country, rather than handing it over to the Belgians or even the Germans. (It was actually Prussian activity in Luxembourg which kept the city from joining the revolt - they garrisoned the fortress when the riots broke out.)
As to why they supported the Belgians, they figured it would be better to make it an independent country rather than a seriously discontented Dutch province which might well support the French, should they invade.
And the provinces were seven: Holland, Utrecht, Zeeland, Gelre, Friesland, Overijssel en Groningen (which was named differently). no Brabant or Vlaanderen here. they were catholic and thus the enemy.
That's not really accurate. Flanders was initially more protestant than many other provinces, like Groningen, Overijssel or Gelre. Brabant and Flanders were not part of the eventual Republic because they were held too strongly by the Spanish, but many Flemish and Brabançon cities did rebel initially. As to a province being 'too catholic', the clear confessialisation of the populace only really occurred after 1648, when the fronts stabilised and the divisions between religions were crystallised. Before then, many people did not choose either religion because the war was undecided.
the southern provinces of the Netherlands stayed spanish until (or almost) our friend Bony.
They stayed Spanish until the Spanish Succession War. When it ended (1713 iirc) the southern Netherlands went to Austria politically, though the Republic got to garrison many of its key fortresses, like Namur, Mons, Liège, etc, until the 1750's when the Republic went neutral. Until 1795 or so the country remained Austrian.

Kor | The Age of Chivalry is upon us!
Wellent ich gugk, so hindert mich / köstlicher ziere sinder,
Der ich e pflag, da für ich sich / Neur kelber, gaiss, böck, rinder,
Und knospot leut, swarz, hässeleich, / Vast rüssig gen dem winder;
Die geben müt als sackwein vich. / Vor angst slach ich mein kinder
Offt hin hinder.

[This message has been edited by Kor (edited 12-11-2008 @ 08:44 AM).]

Boetje
Legionary
posted 11 December 2008 10:15 EDT (US)     36 / 40       
Kor, you just took my pride and last 0,000542 rihtyness point away. you're right, obviously.

Yep, it's true, having no sig is boring. But so is this one. Which makes my point... relatively pointless.
Can a point be a point when it is pointless?
Gallowglass
Legionary
posted 11 December 2008 12:15 EDT (US)     37 / 40       
I'm going to have to disagree with you Gallowglass about the Second World War. I don't know who you're referring to with "us", but it's pretty unfair to say the French started that. The onus for that war is pretty squarely on Germany
'Us' as in Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Great Britain. And France declared war shortly afterwards.

And when it was fairly obvious Hitler was going east and not west, and had no intention or plans to go west, the promise to defend Poland was stupid.

But meh, besides the point unless you feel like recreating this in ETW

------m------m------
(o o)
(~)

Monkey beats bunny. Please put Monkey in your signature to prevent the rise of bunny.
m0n|<3yz r 2 pwn n00b
Boetje
Legionary
posted 12 December 2008 07:37 EDT (US)     38 / 40       
Gallow STOPPING an off-topic discussion? something's wrong...

Yep, it's true, having no sig is boring. But so is this one. Which makes my point... relatively pointless.
Can a point be a point when it is pointless?
Gallowglass
Legionary
posted 12 December 2008 09:27 EDT (US)     39 / 40       

I'd said what I'd needed to say

And, besides...

------m------m------
(o o)
(~)

Monkey beats bunny. Please put Monkey in your signature to prevent the rise of bunny.
m0n|<3yz r 2 pwn n00b
Waffentraeger
Legionary
(id: Daelon)
posted 12 December 2008 10:03 EDT (US)     40 / 40       
Kor has done some impressive work, thank you for taking the time to read up on it!

Gallow... has a odd, slightly weird shaped head.. I think it accounts for many of his actions.
« Previous Page  1 2  Next Page »
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Total War Heaven | HeavenGames