The Ship Model Forum

by **Doug** » Fri Mar 09, 2012 12:16 pm

Yes. But also the partition of Germany at the end of World War II or to build the Berlin Wall were both very rational agreements for those who signed it. But at the same time, for the population and for the country, both things were an absurd aberration.

There was no agreement to build the Berlin Wall. It was an unilateral act by the CCCP and it's puppet, the DDR.

by **Pieter** » Wed Mar 07, 2012 1:00 pm

The 1839 border treaty was definately rational for the powers who signed it, apart from the clauses on Baarle Hertog / Nassau and Neutral Moresnet. That's why these exceptions are so interesting. The 1839 treaty also included the Schelde clauses which are still active (do a google translate on Hedwige polder and have good laugh...let's say some dutch politicians have their own rationality issues) and gave Antwerp guaranteed access to the sea as the Great Powers wanted an economically viable buffer state to keep Louis Phillippe's France in check.
The 1648 treaty that made the Antwerp blockade permanent for 150 years was also rational. In 1648 neither the Spanish Empire nor the united provinces were able to risk another war to change the satus-quo. So the spanish empire left Antwerp and the Spanish Netherlands a backwater of the empire instead of the core of the Habsburg empire which Charles V had originally intended. This was a perfectly rational political decision by both powers. Treaties, like war, are politics by other means. Did the United provinces (who lost the original core city of calvinism in the Netherlands, Antwerp) or the Spanish Empire like this? No. Did the Spanish Empire like the result? Equally no. But both knew that they could not afford another war.

Portobelo wrote:
Pieter wrote:Nope. All feudal borders in Europe were that way until things got rationalised in the 19th century

The border between Belgium and Netherland is far to be rational. /quote]

by **Pieter** » Mon Mar 05, 2012 8:37 pm

Nope. All feudal borders in Europe were that way until things got rationalised in the 19th century, when things like nations and standard language were invented so borders actuallly acquired meaning. Clear borders between states became neccesary because of that. Baarle Nassau / Baarle Hertog sort of missed out. Like Andorra and San Marino they're a reminder of a time before rigid nation states and nationalism.

Portobelo wrote: It seems like the border between Flanders and the Netherlands has been very Balkan in the past.

by **Pieter** » Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:15 pm

Baarle Nassau / Baarle Hertog can be real fun if you have a TomTom or a similar nav system in your car.
Hertog has it's own internal enclaves and exclaves so on some roads the nationality changes every hundred meters. Too much for my brothers' TomTom in any case. When we drove around Baarle last year we got the following results:
"You are entering Belgium"
"You are entering The Netherlands"
"You are entering Belgium"
"You are entering The Netherlands"
"You are entering ....Beeeeep..."
"Just a moment...just a moment.....just a moment..."
As we are 2001 fans we decided to switch it off and dig out the old fashioned road map.

MichelB wrote: Interestingly, there are still small enclaves of Belgium within the Netherlands: Baarle-Hertog, following ancient lines of land divisions. It makes for interesting zoning and city planning, to say the least. However, the severest cross border incidents nowadays consist of passing out drunk on each others doorsteps during carnival.

by **sandy** » Fri Mar 02, 2012 6:43 pm

It was all the fault of the Compte du Cunarde, who was, I believe, the inventor of spontaneous combustion in his later years.

He married the Duchess of Normandie but it all ended badly apparently.

There is some interesting stuff about him on wikipedia.

by **MichelB** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 3:57 pm

henry4 wrote:And you know this better than me.

In a way... yeah, I do!

by **Filipe Ramires** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:39 pm

MichelB wrote:Sorry, dude, but that's as farfetched as seeing the current Spanish political debates as a part of some warmongering against Portugal.

Wouldn't make much sense such debate given that, as a defined border nation-state, Portugal is older then Spain.

by **henry4** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:00 pm

EJFoeth wrote:...the 80-year civil war ,... also known... as the Dutch war of independence

Regarding the definition of "civil war":
If you read about the "Union of Arras", and the "Union of Utrecht",
you come to the conclusion that
the name of "The Dutch War of Independence"
is only a false euphemism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_of_Arras

The "80 years war" really was between these two "Unions"
and NOT between two different states.
So we must conclude it was a civil/secesion war

MichelB wrote:Maybe they call it
the War of Northern Aggression?

Jokes apart...
From the peace of 1609,
the Union of Utrecht (Holland) sought
and promoted to start again the war
against the Union of Arras (Belgium).
And you know this better than me.

by **MichelB** » Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:34 am

Maybe they call it the War of Northern Aggression?

(no jab to the South)

by **EJFoeth** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:37 pm

Ah yes, the 80-year civil war , also known (from the side that didn't loose) as the Dutch war of independence against Spanish occupation.

by **Guest** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:03 pm

I dont understand why the moderator dont block this thread too ...how much time more doo you need to realize that the user henry4 is only a provocative extremist lead only to glorify his beloved Spain

by **henry4** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:38 pm

MichelB wrote: no bellicose Calvinist church manipulated the population

It is evident that you are not well informed.
Do you know who were the "Gomarists"?

They were the Calvinist Inquisition in Holland during XVII century and later. But with absollute political power.
They not only helped to promote and maintain the 80 years civil war in Netherlands, breaking the Netherlands in two forever ...
Also the Gomarists were busy sabotaging any possibility of peace and reconciliation, prosecuting the supporters of the truce in Flanders. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johan_van_Oldenbarnevelt )

At the same time, they developed the first anti-Semitic and racist theological thesis in the history of the cristianism. According Gomarists interpretation of the Bible, the Jews and blacks were predestined to be prosecuted and enslaved by Christians ... These theories were applied in the Dutch colonies like Surinam and South Africa, where the Dutch Church justified the slavary and the apartheid. In the twentieth century the Nazis adopted the Gomarists thesis to prosecute the jews.

I think is important recognize this here.

by **MichelB** » Mon Feb 27, 2012 3:25 pm

But you are taking a internal power struggle along religious/political lines, (which was fought in what, for 17th-century european standards would exceptionally mild manners (what, one execution? this is the 17th century...) and you are positioning it as a means in in an international conflict. That international conflict didn't exist. "War against Flanders"? Sorry, dude, but that's as farfetched as seeing the current Spanish political debates as a part of some warmongering against Portugal.

by **henry4** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:03 pm

MichelB wrote: You just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

I know in the XVII century the state of Belgium did not exist, nor the ATOMIUM ...
But the name of Belgium has been known and used since the Romans.

Regarding the Dutch supporters of reconciliation (known as Remonstrants) were executed by the "Gomarists" and you can read about it in Wikipedia. But we must understand what we are reading .... Read it carefully. It is not religion, is political!

Regarding the religious manipulation, you need to read about "Gomarists" and new translations of the Bible used by them as war propaganda against Flanders (or Belgium, as you prefer) ...

Everything is in Wikipedia. With errors and misspelled, but it's there.

by **Filipe Ramires** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:02 pm

MichelB wrote:Just one question: who taught you this? Where did you learn this?

From Emperor Palpatine?!?!?!?

by **MichelB** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 2:02 pm

The Dutch had no intent of ever 'reconquering' Belgium (which didn't exist in the 17th century: Flanders belonged to Spain, the Holy Roman Empire and Austria successively); the whole idea would be preposterous. The Dutch republic had a defensive posture on the European mainland, with an underfunded land army barely sufficient to man our border forts. There never was any war between the Republic and Belgium (which didn't exist): we had other things to do and completely diffirent internal issues on our minds. No supporters of reconcilliation were ever executed, no bellicose Calvinist church manipulated the population. You just have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Just one question: who taught you this? Where did you learn this?

by **Filipe Ramires** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 1:02 pm

Trolls stepping on glass..! "Pointless it is to illuminate those who like to live on the Dark Side of the Force.....hmmmmmm"!!!

by **Ady** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 12:25 pm

henry4 wrote:In half of the seventeenth century, the civil war in Flanders ended.
But the blockade of Antwerp remained.
To do this, the Dutch used 2 forts at the entrance of the river Scheldt.
These two fortresses exist today
and can be seen in the map bellow.

The reason for maintaining the blockade in peacetime
is clear to me: The Dutch were waiting for the opportunity
to reconquer Belgium. Lift the blockade would be for them
such as recognizing an independent Belgium.

Beyond the blockade of Antwerp, also were used another political
and propagandistic weapons. Those Dutch supporters of
peace and reconciliation with Belgium were executed.
Also the belicous Calvinist church manipulated the population
to support the war against Belgium. Furthermore, private
companies were created (as the Company of the West Indies),
to encourage the piracy and plunder against the trade with Belgium ...

The blockade of Antwerp was the beginning of the Dutch maritime expansion,
attacking another nation for reach the objectives.
It was the beggining of the piracy.
Later England would take the model of Holland
and would be also launched to piracy as a way of overseas expansion.

Unbelievable.

What then would be your definition of Spains overseas expansion, the wholesale rape of an entire continent. I guess it's not really piracy, since it was not on the open seas but I'm guessing most sane minded people would label it much worse.

Cheers for the laugh!

by **henry4** » Sun Feb 26, 2012 9:03 am

In half of the seventeenth century, the civil war in Flanders ended.
But the blockade of Antwerp remained.
To do this, the Dutch used 2 forts at the entrance of the river Scheldt.
These two fortresses exist today
and can be seen in the map bellow.

The reason for maintaining the blockade in peacetime
is clear to me: The Dutch were waiting for the opportunity
to reconquer Belgium. Lift the blockade would be for them
such as recognizing an independent Belgium.

Beyond the blockade of Antwerp, also were used another political
and propagandistic weapons. Those Dutch supporters of
peace and reconciliation with Belgium were executed.
Also the belicous Calvinist church manipulated the population
to support the war against Belgium. Furthermore, private
companies were created (as the Company of the West Indies),
to encourage the piracy and plunder against the trade with Belgium ...

The blockade of Antwerp was the beginning of the Dutch maritime expansion,
attacking another nation for reach the objectives.
It was the beggining of the piracy.
Later England would take the model of Holland
and would be also launched to piracy as a way of overseas expansion.

by **henry4** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:54 pm

Tom L. wrote:The Spanish army did a great deal to reduce Antwerp's attractiveness to the outside world in 1576; blockading an entrepot without the great appeal it once had surely didn't complicate the task.

Well ...
For the Spanish army the great deal was recover Antwerp for the Flemish.

The Ship Model Forum

1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.

Re: 1585 Naval Blockade to Antwerp.