Dutch Republic remianed Great Power in 18th century

What should happen to keep the Dutch Republic Great Power status in the 18th century.
Or what could happen if the Dutch Republic had more succes with refroming the State and become more agressive with European politics.

The Decline of the Dutch republic started after the Peace of Utrecht in1712, which did not turned favourable for the Republic. And became more critical from the 1720 onwarts due to a combination of factors.

Suppose this war ended in 1709 with very favourable condictions for the Dutch and the English. Suppose the State Pensioner of that time, Hensius had, due to this peace treaty, enough prestige to succesful reform the Dutch Republic, from a con-federation in to a more centralized federation, which was more able to get its finance on track, was more desisive and in turn gave room for more funds for army and navy. Both army and navy might happen to be centralized as well.
Let asume they side continously with the British and did not changed side to the French which turned out dissastrous, even before the French revolution.
 
What should happen to keep the Dutch Republic Great Power status in the 18th century.
Or what could happen if the Dutch Republic had more succes with refroming the State and become more agressive with European politics.

The Decline of the Dutch republic started after the Peace of Utrecht in1712, which did not turned favourable for the Republic. And became more critical from the 1720 onwarts due to a combination of factors.

Suppose this war ended in 1709 with very favourable condictions for the Dutch and the English. Suppose the State Pensioner of that time, Hensius had, due to this peace treaty, enough prestige to succesful reform the Dutch Republic, from a con-federation in to a more centralized federation, which was more able to get its finance on track, was more desisive and in turn gave room for more funds for army and navy. Both army and navy might happen to be centralized as well.
Let asume they side continously with the British and did not changed side to the French which turned out dissastrous, even before the French revolution.

Rather unusual, have Maarten Tomp properly salute the English fleet at Goodwin Sands. While British naval growth would be inevitable at that time, it would prevent the disastrous Anglo-Dutch wars that ripped the Dutch navy to shreds and exposed their relatively large merchant fleet to incursions. That way, even if the Brits are the masters of the seas, the Dutch Republic could very well end up being a major financial power itself, probably replace London as Europe's prime financial capital.
 
But in the end the Dutch won those Anglo-Dutch Wars (at least the second and third). And if Tromp did salute the English, the English would have found another excuse to start the war, just as they did in 1665 and 1672.

It was not England that was the mortal enemy (it was the main trade competitor of course), but France that sucked the Republic dry by necessitating a huge army in the Southern Netherlands. An army that the Repubic could not afford.
 
Couldn't afford, maybe not at that level, but the Republic also liked budget cuts on the military and navy too much at a level they actually could afford.
The Republic learned that the hard way, but it did made itself a too easy target too.

Another thing which hurt the Dutch economy were the protectionist English Navigation acts.

OTOH one of the greatest Dutch naval victories was under admiral Michiel de Ruyter, the battle of Chatham/Raid on the Medway during the second Anglo-Dutch war. Furthermore Goodwin Sands sounds like they were looking for an excuse to start a fight...

Then there is the issue of continiously siding with Britain, sure the Dutch Republic might have been better, but there are a few things, is playing second fiddle really Great Power status and secondly even as Britain's ally the Republic ended up being screwed over (some of the deals good for Britain were meager for the Republic at best).
 

FDW

Banned
Didn't the Dutch also have some severe issues with debt during the 18th century?
 
Maybe also have the VOC become even more influential, which is to say, have it be more successful in India, increasing the need for maintaining a larger navy.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Didn't the Dutch also have some severe issues with debt during the 18th century?

Yes the Dutch had a massive debt after years of war especially William III's wars against France. As I understand it (and I could be slightly off since I'm not an expert in 18th century macro-economics) the Dutch economy stagnated severely in the 18th century while Britain's expanded in large part because of the economic advantages Britain gained out of the Peace of Utrecht. While on the one hand the Dutch lost foreign trade monopolies or at least advantages in India and Asia its domestic goods became more expensive in Europe leading to a drop off in trade and exports. Britain compensated for this by opening markets in the America's under terms of the Treaty that gave it access to the Spanish Empire. Thus the Dutch couldn't foreign tariffs. Meanwhile the Dutch merchants began investing primarily in bonds to finance the debt not trade ventures like ships or factories or things that would expand the economy, when they did it was usually as foreign direct investment in Britain which was considered to be a safer bet with a better rate of return.

So the long and the short of it is that Britain grew while the Netherlands declined. The Peace of Utrecht was a bigger influence but by no means the sole source of the problem. But a Treaty that gave the Dutch the same benefits as Britain would level the playing field and allow the Dutch to hold their own. The problem is the Dutch were so recalcitrant that they at first refused very generous terms. They miscalculated and were caught flat footed when policy shifted in Britain and the British essentially cut a separate peace with France. They essentially had to take it or leave it (Austria took a pass and fought on alone for a little while but had to sue for peace with no better terms) and so, like the French said, the Peace was negotiated 'de vous, chez vous, sans vous'. But if they had been at the bargaining table with Britain at its side and with real leverage they certainly could have come out better.
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Yeah, I remember seeing that on wikipedia when I did some searches on various articles. And didn't the bond situation (for internal improvements I believe) make the debt situation even worse?

I think, but I'm not sure. And like SavoyTruffle said I think politics played a major role given the leadership issues during the Second Stadtholderless Period.

I also wonder about the barrier system and the Southern Netherlands, from a geo-political point of view, since we're talking about the Netherlands as a strategic not merely economic power. It seems like the settlement neither pleased nor benefited anyone. The Dutch garrisoned the forts but IIRC the garrisons were paid for by taxes raised in the Southern Netherlands which impinged upon Austrian sovereignty and thus frustrated Vienna. Obviously the logic behind it was to defend the Netherlands from France by creating an outer defense perimeter but the execution didn't really seem to benefit them in the long run. The Austrians never had much interest in the Netherlands at least compared to say Milan and Italy. So they were never really going to back the Dutch, or at least their interests never really aligned, yet they were bound by that system until the Austrians finally repudiated it. And then the Austro-French Alliance essentially nullified the positive effect of the Southern Netherlands as a barrier to France entirely.

I'm not sure what the alternative would be, however. Though it reinforces in my mind the fact that Utrecht was really a disaster for the Dutch interests in the 18th century.
 
Thanks for the input. What would happen if the republic was restructured as proposed in 1717? Faction strife could than channeled like in brittan. Whigs vs Torries, and more decissive actions could be made. It would not end in oliarchy and civil war at the end of the cenury.
Econimicly things weren't that bad as most of the time is thought, especially for the 1st half of the century. The problem was that the state finances, due to a more and more failing tax system, a ever increasing debt, and a non developing of a central gouvernment, was detoriating the funtiong of the state. The financial sector at a whole was actualy maturing, with a shift from producing to service. Unfortunatly investments were more and more not benifical for Dutch entrepeneurs but more for forreign, which is one of the reasons of failing productivity and income.
 
Last edited:
Some things that come into mind to improve the economic situation is a bit more luck in the colonies: If the Dutch would keep Northern Brasil they'd be able to generate a lot of cash from there. They barely missed the conquest of Angola IOTL, that would greatly increase profits from slave trade, finally if they became colonizers in the North as the British/English did, they might be able to keep New Netherlands as important markets. Given that they sit on the Rhine they could rely on Germans as emmigrants to their North American colonies, that's more than enough to build up a counterweight to the British colonies. They should also actively promote colonization of South Africa.

Now considering Europe, I think a broader population base would be needed to stay a great power. Annexing the Austrian Netherlands will not help, as then they'd be next to France and have a lot of Catholic subjects. But expansion to the East into largely protestant Northern Germany could work. Didn't they once come short of taking the bishopric of Munster? Granted, it's catholic, but add that to the Netherlands and they'll control large parts of Northern Germany!
 
I was thinking of that. At the 18th century the Dutch had still a very large portion of trade post ( later called colonies)
Wha would happen if the Councel of State made an agrement with the VOC to make the Cape Colony under direct control of the Republic, and if some thing simmilar was done with the trade post and plantations of Suriname, Berbice, Goldcoast, Cylon and a trade with Portugal for trade post around Cabinda (Congo river)
This would open the Cape for colonists and remove restricting company rules on other (trade) post. The Republic would provide protection in exchange for tax.
Considering Munster, there were plans between Prusia and Hanover at a time to disolve this Prince Bishopric and devide it among them. What would happen is the Dutch Republic had enough finances to kep a larger army, or have a kind of comscription, to make a simmilar deal with Prusia? And an awarenes among the Dutch rulers that the present East provinces were not large enough as buffer states to protect Holland, Zeeland and Utrecht ( the econimc hart of the Republic)
 
One thing would be to avoid the Dutch invasion of England in 1688. That proved to be a disaster to the Dutch because it made England/Britain a formidable competitor afterwards. Before the invasion, England was unstable with corrupt and inefficient finances; the conquering Dutch gave the English a stable state that was resolutely Protestant, reformed English finances (including founding the Bank of England) to be more efficient and sent capital to kickstart the moribund English economy. Rather than being grateful, England/Britain, backed by the security of being an island, became a fierce competitor that the Dutch, being based on the Continent, could not match in the coming centuries.

Another thing would be to break French power so that the Netherlands would not have had to spend money on forts and standing armies to check French aggression. They missed an opportunity to do that by refusing to accept Loius XIV offer of surrendering all conquered French territories that he had made in previous wars and the Spanish throne during the War of Spanish Succession.
 
Mike wrote:

England was unstable with corrupt and inefficient finances; the conquering Dutch gave the English a stable state that was resolutely Protestant, reformed English finances (including founding the Bank of England) to be more efficient and sent capital to kickstart the moribund English economy.

Oh dear! This sounds ominously like the old, discredited view that the Norman Conquest was a Good Thing, dragging the benighted Anglo-Saxons out of the Dark Ages.

It's also a strange kind of 'conquest' where the 'invading' fleet is actually commanded by an Englishman... If Hitler had thought of this wheeze he could have pulled off Sealion: just appoint Somerville or Cunningham to command his armada!
 
Mike wrote:



Oh dear! This sounds ominously like the old, discredited view that the Norman Conquest was a Good Thing, dragging the benighted Anglo-Saxons out of the Dark Ages.

It's also a strange kind of 'conquest' where the 'invading' fleet is actually commanded by an Englishman... If Hitler had thought of this wheeze he could have pulled off Sealion: just appoint Somerville or Cunningham to command his armada!

Conquering might be too strong wording, the Gloriuos Revolution was a "conquest" by invitation.
But fact is, it triggered events in England which significant improved the financial bases of the realm.
A process seen many times before and after.
As example, the idea of the stock exchange (in Amstedam) was imported by mechants from Frandres, who sought refuge in Amsterdam during the Dutch revolt.
The prototype of the Bank of England was the Amsterdam bank of Loan. Like this there many examples.
 
Conquering might be too strong wording, the Gloriuos Revolution was a "conquest" by invitation.
.

It was a conquest in the fullest sense of the word. There was no real "invitation". The invasion was planned for years and was not a spur of the moment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/history-in-the-making-the-glorious-revolution-of-168891-was-really-a-dutch-invasion-this-distortion-of-the-facts-reflects-our-narrow-view-of-britains-past-argues-jonathan-israel-1565642.html
 
It was a conquest in the fullest sense of the word. There was no real "invitation". The invasion was planned for years and was not a spur of the moment.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ains-past-argues-jonathan-israel-1565642.html

Keep in the midle what it was, conquest or not.
You are valid on the point that giving the crown of England to William III give hime a power base to conduct wars against Louis XIV for several decades, most on the expense of the Dutch Republic, which did not gain much with it.
How ever this was also in the interesed for the Dutch Republic as well, if Louis XIV was not checked he ( or his successor) probably gradualy moved to French border to the North until it reached the river Rhine as natural border.
A better and earlier conclusion of the War oF the Spanish succession and in the early decades of the 18th century a sate reform would give a better change for the Dutch Republic to survive as Great Power or at least as significant player in stead as a more and more marginal country as it was at the last decades of the 18th century. Rock bottom with debt, completly devided ( almost at the brink of civil war) and ruled by an ( even for that time) utterly corrupt incabable to change, oliarchy.
 
Top