The Ship Model Forum

In 1585 the Dutch Republic blocked the entrance of the main port of the world (Antwerp, in Belgium) for a period of 210 years.

My question is: Was there ever a blockade longer than this?
Second question: Why was the blockade so long?

Because we, like, totally, could, man! Yeah! We like blockaded the **** out of that city. We made that city our little ****, man! RAAAAAH HOLLAND HOLLAND RAAAHH! GO GEUZEN GO GEUZEN! RAAAAH!!!!

Well, pardon me.

It was a measure of economic warfare against what was in that time the Spanish Netherlands. The blockade became a negotiated settlement in the Treaty of Munster. After that, the Spanish Netherlands were a backwater for the Spanish and later Austrian crown, and appearantly not worth the effort of renegotiating that settlement, even with a weakening Dutch republic.

EDIT:
I stand corrected: appearantly it was worth the effort, leading to the Kettle War.

_________________
If all else fails, a complete pig-headed refusal to see facts in the face will see us through. - General Melchett

"economic warfare" ...????
How do I block the entrance to a harbor for 200 years using only the "economy"?
Absurd!
To blockade a port you need guns and soldiers, not economy.

I think the reasons for this block (the longest in history) lie in the 80 years civil war between Dutch and Flemish ... A civil war that has not really ever ended, and that has lasted well over 80 years.

The Spanish were only a excuse used by Dutch propaganda to justify their intolerance and envy toward the Catholic, prosperous and fertile Flanders.

At least for me, only these facts explain satisfactorily the history of the Dutch blockade in Antwerp for 210 years.

Belgian insurgent troops took the city of Kerkrade last week while Dutch troops were occupied with their encircling movement of Liège. Rebel scum! As a reprisal, the Dutch will not flood the Hedwig Polder...

War is hell...

You are not understanding what the term means. In this context, "economic warfare" means attacking the enemy's economy, as opposed to military, political, or social targets.

_________________
De quoi s'agit-il?

xx

well, that's not really a surprise, i guess, seeing as how he/she/it willfully doesn't understand a lot of things.

**self censored reply **

I agree that 200 years (well, give or take) is quite long, but it's one of those weird things that are born out of strategic necessity, and grow into (grudgingly) agreed-upon custom.

The whole Eighty Years war is far too complex to reduce it to Dutch vs. Flemish. The religious and political machinations never followed the division of the currect Belgian-Dutch border, which was only formed in the later stages of war, due to military movements and feudal shuffling of the map at negotiating tables.

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.

_________________
If all else fails, a complete pig-headed refusal to see facts in the face will see us through. - General Melchett

The purpose of a naval blockade in general is to deny the enemy the use of the sea adjacent to its territories having both in and out sea trade been cut off from the seized territory. By doing this you are affecting the import/export trade system of the target in question and eventually you will destroy its trading capabilities and possibly their own survivability. Sometimes it's a long process to manage to subdue the intended target.

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher

I recommend you read a little more about the political situation in Belgium ...
In Belgium today, the risk of rupture is very high.

If we travel 500 years back, perhaps we would see a similar situation in all the provinces of the Low Countries. But unlike today, then there was a king willing to maintain the country united at any price. Thanks to this king, Belgium exists today.

So that king managed to preserve a country that didn't exist until 320 years later? Wow, that's some achievement.

You should learn to interpret the data:
That king (the king of the Low Countries) laid the foundations that LATER!! made possible the creation of Belgium as an independent state.

You don't mean that state of Belgium that seceded from the Netherlands in 1830, only to have been part of the Netherlands for only 15 year and before that being a part of France, after having been governed by Austria for nearly a century? All after the Spanish?

That king was *really* good to have foreseen all that by laying all those wonderful foundations for Belgium independence. Too bad he didn't see the recession coming and avoid that high unemployment rate....

But I think I know perfectly well what you mean: before becoming an independent state you first need to be conquered, occupied and repressed. You cannot be independent before being dependent, but I doubt that was the Spanish intent.

What independence?
In Netherland there is a need for national reaffirmation
that has created a false history with myths.

In the sixteenth century the Netherlands were not a colony,
not a conquered country either,
but a sovereign kingdom, with its own king and its own laws.
Dutch noblemen tried to become kings themselves,
using a "religious crusade" as a tool to gain power.
The falsely so called "Dutch War of Independence"
was really a civil war between dutch rebels
and the Flemish loyal to their King.

The disastrous result of this civil war was, in 1585 in Antwerp,
Holland and Belgium were separated forever.
In reprisal, the Netherlands blocked by sea Flanders
for 210 years until Napoleon invaded the Netherlands and lifted the blockade.

And this is the subject: How this blockade was done?

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.

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!

_________________
NVNC EST BIBENDVM

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

_________________
"Build few and build fast,
Each one better than the last"
John Fisher