Talk:Dano-Dutch War

Not sure if this should be called a war

There was no declaration of war and no peace treaty. And I haven't seen any English or Dutch historians call this the Dano-Dutch War either DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello.

This is, as i see it most definetly a war. I have not found any direct declaration of war, but acording to I Solkongens Skygge, by Lars Christensen, page 66, there were a treaty signed.

More concretely, Denmark could draw support from France in disputes with others countries. This was true in relation to the Netherlands, where Sehested towards the end of his embassy asked Louis XIV to support Denmark in the conflicts over trade in Guinea. The French king then also ordered the ambassador in The Hague, d'Estrades, to in the king's name do everything to support the Danish demands. However, it was of little use: the disputes remained first (partially) resolved with the Danish-Dutch treaty of 1666 and the Peace of Breda 1667. (Translated from Danish)}

Also can i hear your arguements, for how this is an mixed result? And also the "other" territorial changes? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

To me it is not clear why 1665 should be seen as the end of the conflict? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the dates should be changed to 1666, since that is when a treaty on the issue was signed, but the siege of Cape Corso ended on 3 May 1664, which I think is the last military act between the Danes and the Dutch, so it could also be changed to that. Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Robinvp11 @MWAK @Admiral Fisker

I pinged Robin and MWAK because they have contributed a lot to pages on the Anglo-Dutch Wars and Admiral Fisker because he is very familliar with Danish sources. (1 happens to be a Brit, 1 a Dutchman and 1 Dane)

Curious what you guys think of this page. The information is valuable, but I am not sure about the page name and some other things. According to @Tinkaer1991 this was an Anglo-Danish victory, but I am not sure if that makes sense since the Second Anglo-Dutch War was going on by the time of the Danish-Dutch Treaty. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

A basic misunderstanding seems to be that the treaties of 1666 and 1667 somehow concluded a peace between the Republic and Denmark. These states had not been formally at war; in 1666 Denmark entered the war on the Dutch side. There were always hostilities between outposts of the various trade companies.--MWAK (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What did the Danish-Dutch treaty of 1666 then conclude? According to Lars Christensen, who has a Ph.d in History, the treaty was to solve the disputes of "trade in Guinea"

Even though I still see this as a de facto war, im open to changing the name to Dano-Dutch Conflict or something in those lines, if that is more correct. - Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

This can not be considered a war. No state of war existed between Denmark and the Netherlands, and neither Danish nor Dutch policy was, luckily, decided by small garrisons in Africa. This was rather a series of skirmishes between colonial outposts, which wasn't uncommon. Such outposts often had a very free hand, as the capitals of their respective countries were months away, meaning that oversight was very loose, and that orders could not arrive with any form of expediency. Lars Christensen himself cites this as the reason for these minor encounters between allies in far-off lands:

"With two small forts and the Glückstadt Company behind them, it seemed like the groundwork for good business beneficial to private investors and the King's reputation had been laid. The problems were, however, enormous. The Dutch and the English were fighting aggressively for the same territories without any great consideration for whether or not there was peace or war between their respective states in Europe. In the Maritime Powers [England and the Netherlands] it was also private companies that held the right to trade in the colonies, and their somewhat hard-handed capitalism regularly ran counter to the interests of their native states. It was one of the last places were the states still were not strong enough to take control, including the control of the monopoly on violence."

- Frederik III - Fra Afmagt til Enevælde, s. 547 (2023)

With regards to the 1666 treaty: such a treaty to solve a dispute or a conflict would not mean that a war had ever existed. Border and colonial disputes were not extremely uncommon, and treaties were at times signed to solve such disputes. However, nowhere does Lars Christensen state that the treaty was signed to solve the disputes. Instead, he writes that the treaty did solve the dispute alongside the 1667 Treaty of Breda. Denmark's possession of the Guinean trading posts was confirmed at Breda (see the same page in Christensen's book mentioned above), and the 1666 treaty was instead just an alliance treaty between Denmark and the Netherlands, wherein the question of the Guinean ports was only briefly touched upon - it was, you might say, in this regard only settled preliminarily:

"Negotiations relating to the Guinean skirmishes and the remaining subsidies had only been completely preliminary, but these questions would presumably not cause any difficulties...

With regards to the dispute in Guinea between the Danish Africa Company and the Dutch West India Company, the Dutch commissionaires agreed to a draft treaty proposed by Klingenberg...

- Danmark-Norges Traktater 1523-1750 - Sjette Bind, s. 78 & 85 (1923)

There was no state of war, nor any conclusion of peace. Hence why this series of skirmishes cannot be considered a war. Admiral Fisker (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I humbly take my statement back then, but this still arises the question to the page name. Do you have any suggestions? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

'Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast', perhaps? Admiral Fisker (talk) 13:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s too long. Maybe call it “Dano-Dutch colonial conflict” since it was the only colonial conflict they fought 85.203.152.246 (talk) 13:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Denmark and the Dutch also fought colonial in Battle of Jakobshavn Tinkaer1991 (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

“Dano-Dutch colonial war” then? E4t5s.new (talk) 13:57, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It can't be classified as a war. I like the 'Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast' best. Much of the information in the article in the 'war section' could overlap with a possible page on Holmes's expedition (1664) though. That is a page wich would be more supported as a catagory by the historiography and could also include Dutch-Danish tensions. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we just name it that then? E4t5s.new (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

isnt that just extemely long? 'Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict' seems to fit better in my opinion Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

You literally said that it couldn’t be called that because I

of the battle of jakoptshavn E4t5s.new (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

no i just mentioned it?? Didnt say it "couldn’t be called" Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

What do you propose the should be then? E4t5s.new (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This is difficult to put as a war, a conflict maybe. A similar comparison would be the Amboyna Massacre or the Battle of Chinsurah. There was no Anglo Dutch war for either - just a conflict between two different companies. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

So what would you call it? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I would be quite happy to call it Gold Coast colonial dispute or conflict. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Gold Coast colonial conflict sound good to me Tinkaer1991 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

That is too vague. The Dano-Dutch disputes were not the only colonial conflicts that plagued the Gold Coast. I still think that Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast is best. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Do anyone oppose? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Just do it at this point E4t5s.new (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

No. let's please wait for some time for people who may oppose this, to interact. Some may have some alternative names. What do you all say abou tUser:DavidDijkgraaf proposal? User:Eastfarthingan, User:Admiral Fisker, User:MWAK, User:E4t5s.new, User:Robinvp11 Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 18:11, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not oppose. Please go ahead. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Good name.--MWAK (talk) 06:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

shouldn't I just rename it to that then? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 08:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes E4t5s.new (talk) 08:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I think I might have made a mistake. When trying to rename it, it just says "page already exists" someone please help Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've renamed it but unable to find the history. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Tinkaer1991v2 did you save the original article somewhere? Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

the orignal article is still called Dano-Mughal War. I accidently changed the talk page to an article Tinkaer1991 (talk) 15:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We'll have to start again. New page here Dano-Dutch colonial conflict on the Gold Coast, unless anyone else can come up with another plan? Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

What exactly happened? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I guess the main page got wiped as it already existed when moved. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Damn lol. That kinda sucks. Isn't there some admin who can get it all back you think? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 21:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hang on. Article is still there -Dano-Dutch war! I'm confused! 😄 Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk pages

When the dust settles and the articles are at titles which have consensus, please sort out the talk pages. This page (currently called Talk:Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast) is the talk page of a redirect, but should probably be attached to an article. Talk:Dano-Dutch War redirects to Dano-Mughal War. I'm not sure that these are the same war, and a redirect from Talk: to main namespace is rare and usually in error. Certes (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe the titles are now sorted out, with articles Dano-Dutch War and Dano-Mughal War having their own talk pages, and redirects such as Dano-Dutch colonial conflict on the Gold Coast targeting the former. Certes (talk) 08:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thats brilliant, than you for sorting. 🙏 Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

So should we now try again with moving the article name? Tinkaer1991v2 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

If you think another title would be better, you can start a requested move discussion. A bot will advertise it appropriately, and a neutral experienced editor will come along after a week to close the discussion and to move the pages properly if they see a consensus to do so. Certes (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)