This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ghana, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ghana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GhanaWikipedia:WikiProject GhanaTemplate:WikiProject GhanaGhana articles
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)[reply]
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)}
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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...
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hello DavidDijkgraaf. Now when the issue of the title finally has been solved, we should move on to your changes of the infobox. I have yet to see your explenation to how this was a mixed result, and what "other territorial changes" occured. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 10:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
