Talk:Geuzen

Merge?

There is a separate article Sea Beggars. It seems to refer to exactly the same people. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 18:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you are right, although I did not know the term 'sea beggar' before, and the name GEUS, definitely does not mean beggar in Dutch (albeit derived from French see text) so while merging I would be very careful about choosing name. One small note is that there are some 'land geuzen' although they play a very minor role compared to the 'water geuzen'.

So yes to merger, but apply carefu editing when doing so. Arnoutf 19:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are three articles, there is also Les Gueux, this one refers more to the 'land geuzen' then the 'water geuzen'. Its probable best to merge al three of them under Geuzen. Dany174 13:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Good catch, I added a tag with this merger suggestion. Arnoutf 14:27, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with merging all three, they aren't a specific organisation I believe, more of an amlagamation of interests against Spanish rule. The only identifiable factor was the fact that sometimes they operated on land, sometimes at sea, sometimes both. Nikevs 18:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Quotation?

Reading the article I noticed the quotation “Ce ne sont que des gueux” (they are nothing but beggars). Apparently from Van der Horst’s (2005) Nederland: de vaderlandse geschiedenis van de prehistorie tot nu

The Les Gueux article quotes it as "What, madam, is your highness afraid of these beggars (ces gueux)?"

So I looked it up in Wedgwood, C.V., “William the Silent, William of Nassau, Prince of Orange 1533-1584” and she quotes it as “Quoi, Madame.” “Peur de ces gueux?” “What Madame, afraid of these beggars?”. Which is pretty much the same as in the Les Gueux article.

I was wondering which is the right one. Dany174 09:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't know. I never heard before of the English version. Indeed the quotation as listed here was copied from the (Dutch) book by Van der Horst (page 132). If anyone finds conclusive proof of either, I would be happy to adopt that one Arnoutf 18:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge

I've done the merge, the tags have been here too long. The article is now under Les Gueux, which may or may not be the best place. It was however the best article and since it referred to the Britannica, I'm guessing that Les Gueux is the name used in English. Piet 12:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Elizabeth of England

The article depicts English involvement in the capture of Brielle as the accidental outcome of an attempt to appease Spain. Elizabeth and her counsellors were not careless people; and their opposition to Spain, the great enemy of the Protestant settlement, was covert and cloaked where possible with deniability. The article should consider the possibility that the closing of the English harbours was part of a deception plan. Please could someone check in English historiography on say Walsingham, Eliabeth's brilliant, ruthless and very Protestant spymaster.

--JamesWim (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just looked at Robert Hutchinson's book (Elizabeth's Spymaster) and there's nothing directly about this. Walsingham was at the time Elizabeth's ambassador in France and the French (Hugenots) were keen for war against Philip's forces in the Netherlands. He does claim that in July 1572 Elizabeth "concerned over French territorial ambitions, sent Sir Humphrey Gilbert...with more than 1,000 volunteer soldiers to occupy the Zeeland coastal towns of Flushing and Sluys against the Spanish, to prevent their occupation by French troops. The expedition was strictly unofficial and Gilbert knew the queen would quickly disown him if disaster struck and his force was defeated." In fact the wiki article suggests that Gilbert was supporting the Watergeuzen (and was unsuccessful). So maybe Elizabeth's action was designed to spur the Watergeuzen into action. Chris55 (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Bulut book

The book: Ottoman-Dutch economic relations: in the early modern period 1571-1699 by Mehmet Bulut appears to be selfpublished. Can someone confirm the reliability of this source? Otherwise we cannot use it. Arnoutf (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Found the bibliographic data. The book is self published based on a dissertation. [1] In general we don't accept dissertation as reliable secondary sources, so I would suggest to be very careful about adopting its conclusions, especially as a strong link between the Dutch rebels and the Ottoman empire is not mainstream. Arnoutf (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The alliance between the Ottomans en the Dutch never existed. There are a couple of people who are trying to rewrite history in favour of the Turks. They also tried it on the dutch wikipedia with the geuzenpenning "liever turks dan paaps". Please remove it, because it is not the truth. 212.178.115.102 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also a Liever Turks dan Paaps article in the English wiki which is disputed. Whatever Bulut says, the Schmidt book is published by C.U.P. and therefore not in the same league. Hence whilst it was probably mostly rhetoric, there seems to have been more to it. Chris55 (talk) 14:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, if I look at the images in this article, apart from the Geuzen medal, no crescent is found. On the paintings of the Dutch ships (which should have raised a Turkish flag, as the article says) I ca only find Dutch or black-and-white striped flags. I will correct it, and remove the speculative parts as well.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)