Why were the Dutch so good.

From their independence from Spain until the day they were blown away by a rampaging Napoleon why were the Dutch able to survive against the odds with very strong neighbours around them and become as succesful as did.
 
If Daron Acemoglu is to be believed, it is because the Dutch had a relatively free market within their country, protected individual rights, and did not drain entrepenuers or workers too much. This allowed the Dutch mercantile class to create an insane amount of wealth, which helped build up a powerful Dutch navy and create a very prosperous society.
 
The Dutch controlled something like 80% of Europes (and much of the World's) trade. This allowed for alot of money available for defense.

They also were the bankers of Europe and money was less of a problem for them.

Note that the Dutch also had natural defensive borders with their harbors and canals. Warfare at this time consisted of very expensive and time-consuming sieges. Most ended with the aggressor ran out of money to pay his mercenaries. The Dutch outlasted them.

They also skillfully played one larger power against another for years. They rarely fought alone against Spain.They typically had Britain and/or France on their side.

As Protestants, the Dutch habitually hired German protestant mercenaries and rarely had to search hard.
 
Well, part of it was the fact that, on a per-capita basis, they were filthy stinking rich. They controlled the hub of Western European trade (where the North-South England - Rhine axis and the East-West Channel-North Sea axis intersected), and a big part of the trade with Asia and the East Indies as well, as this allowed them the funds to train and equip a truly excellent army.

But again, that's only part of it. I can't fully explain why they were able to control such a large share of the trade with Asia, or other factors which contributed to their success.
 
Good ol' Free market. They dominated international system of trade and so were really freaking rich.


Hence the VOC being a monopoly. Free market doesn't describe it well.

Dutch control of the Baltic trade was wrestled from the Hansa through war (and having ships that could make the leg from Poland to the Netherlands in one go, bypassing the Sound/Bight ports), Dutch control of the Indian trade was wrestled from portugal through war.

Now, those two created a rich basis for Dutch merchants to then compete 'fairly' in other European, Asian and American markets, but it was first based on controlling major tradeposts through force.

In my opinion, the critical ingredients are:
1) Urban culture, based on havng good riversystems and good access to the sea, coupled with decent agriculture (see also, Italy)
2) Relative unity, giving a single state able to skim off a bit from all that trade.
3) Government by the merchants for the merchants, so wars were for trade rather than for territorial growth.
4) all the above leading to being way ahead in monetary development, so the Dutch state could outlast tax-based governments financially (the Medway was a result of the Dutch navy outlasting the English, of all people, financially)

Or, in a single sentence, the Dutch Republic was like an Italian merchant city state (esp Venice/Genoa) but bigger and thereby even more powerful.
 
Hence the VOC being a monopoly. Free market doesn't describe it well.

I would refine the statement to say that the Dutch had a relatively free internal market, but were extractive towards outsiders. This allowed them to siphon off a lot of wealth, particularly in the East Indies, while having most of that wealth go towards a dynamic and innovative society once it returned to the Netherlands.
 
So if they had economic, trade and monetary dominance over Europe then why didn't they do a Britain and become the paramount world power. Also didn't they have a very good proto-industry.
 
why didn't they do a Britain and become the paramount world power.

Partly because the Netherlands simply didn't have the manpower Britain had and partly because of the enormous corrpution that arose in the 18th century and effectivly destroyed the country. Besides that france totaly ruined the Dutch economy during Batavian Republic, the kingdom of Holland and the occupation. Oh and the lack of coal and steel didn't help in the 19th century either.

Simply put the Netherlands was in the 19th century a poor and irrelevant country, a mere shell of what it used to be in the 17th century.
 
So if they had economic, trade and monetary dominance over Europe then why didn't they do a Britain and become the paramount world power. Also didn't they have a very good proto-industry.

There's also the fact that after a certain point, the rich in the Netherlands found greater returns in investing in developing markets (ie. England) than in their own. The Dutch economy had reached the point of high development (for its day), and capital wanted new places for better profit.

The same thing happened when England became a world power; the capitalists started investing abroad (U.S. most notably) rather than at home, meaning the U.S. eventually had better industries than Great Britain. It's become something of a cycle once credit became easier to move and invest. EDIT: There are, of course, plenty of examples of this today. Capital seeks new developing markets, which makes sense from a profit point-of-view but over the long term is pretty bad in terms of keeping the home nation strong compared to others.
 
So let me clarify they were rich, strong and they had a trump card up their sleeves. Damn.

Take that with a pinch of salt. Itheir economiccal development allowed them to punch above their weight but meant that once other, larger countries developed the same sort of financial institutions the Dutch had no hope of maintaining their advantage. They essentially hit a one century sweet spot.

They're the perfect example of the dominant force in history being economics rather than the military development or great men that so many people like attribute historical influence to.
 
If the infighting between Republicans and Royalists and the confederate attitudes (Holland Über alles...) could've been avoided the Republic would've, perhaps, lasted even longer.

Eventually ruling the entire world, naturally. ;)
 
Take that with a pinch of salt. Itheir economiccal development allowed them to punch above their weight but meant that once other, larger countries developed the same sort of financial institutions the Dutch had no hope of maintaining their advantage. They essentially hit a one century sweet spot.

They're the perfect example of the dominant force in history being economics rather than the military development or great men that so many people like attribute historical influence to.

It's actually not a very narrow sweet spot. Venice was a great power quite early, until the Ottomans displaced them, and even then clung to relevance for quite a while. Medieval Europe wasn't financially well-developed, so there was a lot of room for more-developed finances to allow a country to punch above its weight.
 
Cities. Trade.
My golden rule of history/geography is more land != more power.
Even in modern times this applies to a large extent. In the early modern period where most of the world was still covered by forest? It worked even more so. Just look how Venice, a city, was able to rival entire countries and empires.

The fact of the matter is the Netherlands was a very urban and well developed place. It may have looked to be a fraction of the size of other European nations but in terms of actual developed land it wasn't that far behind.
Consider their long established role in the European economy as the leading cloth manufacturing area and the mouth of the Rhein and the new trade routes they were opening and it really becomes clear that whoever controls the Netherlands will be making a lot.
 
In my opinion, the critical ingredients are:
1) Urban culture, based on havng good riversystems and good access to the sea, coupled with decent agriculture (see also, Italy)
.
in fact the agriculture was more than decent, they innovated greatly
introducing a new type of plough that made ploughing much easier, and they developed the 4 course crop rotation in the early 1600s.
it were those 2 innovations that later allowed the british agricultural revolution, which in turn allowed the industrial revolution.
 
Top