Talk:Franco-Dutch War

Merger proposal

The Third Anglo-Dutch War is essentially the naval part of the Franco-Dutch War. The article on the former is however much longer! It also contains a description of the land hostilities! I therefore suggest that the text of the Third Anglo-Dutch War be merged into the article on the Franco-Dutch War. At the same time, the Third Anglo-Dutch War article should be either (a) reduced to a small article refering to the Franco-Dutch War, or (b) reduced to a copy of the naval part of the text that it now contains. Please let me know what you think. AWhiteC (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, really. Thing is, I'm Dutch and I study history. The Third Anglo-Dutch War is part of Dutch history, with Michiel de Ruyter being a national hero and all, I've only read some parts about the Franco-Dutch war. So in conclusion my point is I don't know because I'm probably biased! --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea of the Third War is, I expect, much better known: I've read and heard a bit about the Anglo-Dutch Wars in my college history classes, but never heard of a Franco-Dutch war before. However, the fighting considered in these two articles is really significantly different, considering that the Third War lasted much less time than the Franco-Dutch War. Consequently, I don't think it would be right to put both wars under this title. Or if you mean to merge them into a single title: if we did this, what would we call them? Unless you could find some standard name for the unified conflict, other than Franco-Dutch, I think this would be somewhat of original research. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe because its considered as a single part of a larger event, we should let it stand. Compare Seven Years' War and French and Indian War. --Soetermans | is listening | what he'd do now? 10:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that there are several cogent reasons to have separate articles. First of all, if the one concept is a subset of the other, there should be separate articles under the Wiki summary style policy, if the subset is of sufficient length. This now, is clearly the case. The second reason is that separate articles allow us to view the war from different points of view (always desirable under the NPOV policy), i.e. the French and the English attitude and policy towards the war, which were much different. This also means that the Third Anglo-Dutch War is not simply the "naval part" and that events on land concerning the English policy are very relevant. The third reason relates to the first two: what causes this question to arise in the first place is the short length of Franco-Dutch War. If it had been a decent-sized article instead of a stub, and contained a fair description of the many events of the years 1672-1678, it would have been obvious no merge was indicated. So, in the desirable situation the two articles are not merged and the correct way to attain it is to fill out the "French" part.--MWAK (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the Seven Years' War/French and Indian War analogy. Keeping them separate is fine. But at any rate, this article needs to be fleshed out considerably more. This should not be a shorter article than Third Anglo-Dutch War. (I don't buy the "It's not well-known" excuse. This was one of the major wars of the reign of Louis XIV, and involved almost all of the European powers at one time or another. It's nowhere near as obscure as you guys are making it out to be). Funnyhat (talk) 22:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, what Funnyhat says. This is not an obscure war at all. It's one of the major European wars of the seventeenth century. And this article is shamefully bad. john k (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I support keeping separate articles. It is commonplace for inter-related wars to have separate articles in Wikipedia and in other reference works. The different interlocking wars belong to different long-term historical narratives, which people may wish to research individually. Merging everything in to one article would make this much harder to do. Wimstead (talk) 14:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dutch War

"often called simply the Dutch War" which English language sources call it the Dutch War? If they do not then it needs removing (or better moved into a footnote with details of who calls it that in which languages) because as it is, it is misleading and creates a neologism, unless it is a common name in English. -- PBS (talk) 17:20, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a direct translation of the French and Dutch names so should stand I think... Perhaps it could be clearer that it derives from non-English usage though. —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

It also seems to have some English use too, see here —Brigade Piron (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Edits

I've rewritten these but they helped improved the article :). General observations;

- Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia; we need to be careful about overwriting ie large amounts of details that are 'interesting' but not essential to someone seeking general information on this topic. More detail does not necessarily equal better or relevant.I do the same to my own edits. It may be different in the Dutch version (because its your history) but not here; if you look at some of the rewrites I've done on the battles, a lot of the campaign stuff is in there. Plus lists of the towns Charles agreed to divide with Louis aren't really helpful (especially as it never happened).

- A lot of the additions are not sourced; that's fine, because I'm happy to dig them out but again, its not a good use of energy to include paragraphs of detail with no source, that don't

I think this worked fine on the Glorious Revolution and even when I don't agree, thinking through why I don't agree improves the article. So I wanted to explain it. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:38, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, these are not "details" within the scope of the subject. You must keep in mind that there is a very extensive literature dedicated to this war and that the text is still an extreme summarising of it. When to decide what is "relevant" or not, we must abstain from personal preference but try to adhere to common standards. If the text would relate how Louis dressed each day, that would be relevant to a sartorial point of view but irrelevant within the normal standards of a war subject. The text about a war should relate politics, war aims, strategy, logistics, sieges, battles. Quite straightforward, really.

On some points, you do not quite seem to get the gist of events. The deal Louis made with Leopold is essential to understand the course of the war. Only knowing of the deal, we can understand why the French tried to appear not to violate the neutrality of the Spanish Netherlands and why Leopold was so hesitant to confront the French king. Those Dutch towns do not simply make some boring list: they reflect Charles' most fundamental fears and hopes. The hope to take over the world's richest trade. And the fear France would do the same. So these locations tend to, and should, pop up time and again in an adequate treatment of the subject. Thus, we must make explicit why. The argument that Charles of Spain only died in 1700 and the English never got those towns is rather bizarre. That's like glossing over Operation Barbarossa in a narrative of the Second World War because, well, the Germans never reached Moscow, did they?--MWAK (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

As regards the Treaty of Breda: yes, the Dutch were in a hurry to end the war. Charles procrastinated, therefore the Dutch executed the Raid on the Medway and then Charles was in a hurry to end the war :o).--MWAK (talk) 11:29, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Belligerents

England—fighting the Third Anglo-Dutch War as an ally to France—is included as a belligerent, while Sweden—fighting the Scanian War (against the Danes and Dutch) and in northern Germany against Brandenburg as an ally to France—is not included as a belligerent. What is the reasoning behind this? I admit this war is not my main interest, but according to the sources I've seen, like Micheal Clodfelter's Warfare and Armed Conflicts: A Statistical Encyclopedia of Casualty and Other Figures, 1492-2015 (pages 46–47), the Swedish wars were part of the greater Franco-Dutch War, which makes me curious? If Sweden should not be included, a reasoning as well as a source for that would be helpful, so that we can prevent future edit-wars by redirecting editors to the talkpage. Imonoz (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What happend to the Campaignbox?

The campaignbox is impossible to edit it seems DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The campaignbox has linked to a redirect page ("Dutch War" instead of "Franco-Dutch War). I've tried to change it but that does not seem to do anything.--Palastwache (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit: Now it seems to work.--Palastwache (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Map that shows the French positions in the summer of 1672 is problematic

The Spanish Netherlands, Dutch Flanders and Western Germany weren't occupied by France and the map is inaccurate in other ways too. Does somebody know were to find or make a better alternative? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)