High all! I've finally starting real planing for an actual Stuart TL, with the POD being Catherine of Braganza is able to have children, but I would love to incorporate an English victory in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch war as well. Now I don't know much about this war, so if anyone can help me find a point that it could turn ,either entirely or at least partially, in England's favor I would be very grateful.
WI: English Victory in the 2nd Anglo-Dutch war?
- Thread starter Emperor Constantine
- Start date
Razgriz 2K9
Banned
I dunno much, though as far as the Peace is concerned, total English Victory would be to have destroyed Dutch Trading Power. With the possible side effect of gaining Dutch and French overseas territories (i.e. New Netherlands/New York and Cayenne, in what is now French Guiana)
As to how to get there...I dunno.
As to how to get there...I dunno.
To defeat the Dutch, three things are necessary. Money, more money, and, finally, money
Could a significant naval victory, in say the Four day's battle, combined with the birth of an heir, convince Parliament to vote more money to the King?
Possibly, but that might be too late.
The Dutch commanders were better than the English. The English ships were better, ship for ship, but the Dutch soon had more ships.
In essence it came down to a naval construction race . And the Dutch had more construction capacity. That's something not quickly supplied . Even if the English started building dockyards in 1660 it might not be long enough.
a possibility to explore : the English tried to bring Spain in on their side, suggesting that the Dutch had ambitions on the Spanish Netherlands. Spain didn't bite, but that possibility was enough to bring France in on the Dutch side. Now , if the English could manage to invoke Spanish aid, that might make a difference. Even if the Spanish role was only loaning or leasing some ships.
The Dutch commanders were better than the English. The English ships were better, ship for ship, but the Dutch soon had more ships.
In essence it came down to a naval construction race . And the Dutch had more construction capacity. That's something not quickly supplied . Even if the English started building dockyards in 1660 it might not be long enough.
a possibility to explore : the English tried to bring Spain in on their side, suggesting that the Dutch had ambitions on the Spanish Netherlands. Spain didn't bite, but that possibility was enough to bring France in on the Dutch side. Now , if the English could manage to invoke Spanish aid, that might make a difference. Even if the Spanish role was only loaning or leasing some ships.
I was thinking of a combo POD. First, having an heir born to Charles and Catherine and second, having a naval victory in the Dutch war. Now I read in my biography on Charles II that Admiral Michiel de Ruyter was a key naval commander for the Dutch Fleet. So if he were to die in battle (not impossible or unlikely) would that be enough to help turn the tide in English favor? Or was the war decided before it even began?
- For each ship the English built, the Dutch built seven. As a further comparison: HMS Sovereign of the Seas was built in 2.5 years; De Seven Provincien (De Ruyter's flagship of similar size) in less than 8 months.
- When war seemed imminent in 1664, the Dutch fleet consisted of 60 mostly frigate sized ships. In the next three years the complete fleet was replaced with 60 larger ships, 18 of which were comparable to the 10 large 'Big Ships' the English fleet posessed.
- In the first large battle of the war, the Battle of Solebey, the Dutch suffered their worst naval defeat ever: 17 ships lost and their supreme admiral blown up with his flag ship. By the time Michiel de Ruyter returned from his expedition to West Africa and North America a few months later, their was a brand spanking new fleet waiting for him.
- In other words: when the Dutch suffered a major defeat (Lowestoft), they built a new fleet. When the English had a limited victory (St. James's Day Battle) they had to lay up their fleet because there was no money for repairs.
- Add to that the English commanders were also not in the same league as their Dutch counterparts (I mean De Ruyter here; Van Obdam, the admiral who wet up at Lowestoft was originally a cavalry colonel!). Monck dividing his fleet before engaging the main enemy fleet the Four Day's Battle: I am looking at you!
The Second Anglo-Dutch War was like WWII in the Pacific and England was playing the role of Japan. Economically and industrially, the just could not compete with the Dutch Republic at the height of its power.
- When war seemed imminent in 1664, the Dutch fleet consisted of 60 mostly frigate sized ships. In the next three years the complete fleet was replaced with 60 larger ships, 18 of which were comparable to the 10 large 'Big Ships' the English fleet posessed.
- In the first large battle of the war, the Battle of Solebey, the Dutch suffered their worst naval defeat ever: 17 ships lost and their supreme admiral blown up with his flag ship. By the time Michiel de Ruyter returned from his expedition to West Africa and North America a few months later, their was a brand spanking new fleet waiting for him.
- In other words: when the Dutch suffered a major defeat (Lowestoft), they built a new fleet. When the English had a limited victory (St. James's Day Battle) they had to lay up their fleet because there was no money for repairs.
- Add to that the English commanders were also not in the same league as their Dutch counterparts (I mean De Ruyter here; Van Obdam, the admiral who wet up at Lowestoft was originally a cavalry colonel!). Monck dividing his fleet before engaging the main enemy fleet the Four Day's Battle: I am looking at you!
The Second Anglo-Dutch War was like WWII in the Pacific and England was playing the role of Japan. Economically and industrially, the just could not compete with the Dutch Republic at the height of its power.
So even with more money voted by Parliament, the death of De Ryuter and the possibility of a major victory (perhaps both at the Battle of St. James's day?) England would still lose?
I do not think it inevitable. War at sea is even more subject to chance than war on land.
More money voted BEFORE the war, either keep France out , or bring Spain in, and a fistful of luck, and it might be done.
More money voted BEFORE the war, either keep France out , or bring Spain in, and a fistful of luck, and it might be done.
Maybe Parliament could vote more money but a bit unlikely. However, a significant English Victory could either bring in Spanish support or convince Louis XIV to back out of his Dutch alliance.
In late 1665 the Orangist party in the Netherlands was calling for peace. Since this closely followed the great English victory of Lowestoft, and the invasion of the Netherlands by the Bishop of Munster, it would not be at all untoward to regard such a peace as an English victory.
The Orangist attempt to seize power was thwarted by the return of de Witt from the Dutch fleet. And it was all downhill for England from that point.
Drown de Witt on the way home, have the Orangists succeed, hand wave a bit and you have it
EDIT. Interestingly, de Ruyter returned from phuphphing about in America in August 1665 and de Witt handed command of the fleet over to him. Almost certainly for a while those two would have been on the same ship.
Losing their naval head AND their political head at the same time might have dispirited the Dutch somewhat. Amazing what havoc a stupid sailorman in a ship's magazine can cause.
The Orangist attempt to seize power was thwarted by the return of de Witt from the Dutch fleet. And it was all downhill for England from that point.
Drown de Witt on the way home, have the Orangists succeed, hand wave a bit and you have it
EDIT. Interestingly, de Ruyter returned from phuphphing about in America in August 1665 and de Witt handed command of the fleet over to him. Almost certainly for a while those two would have been on the same ship.
Losing their naval head AND their political head at the same time might have dispirited the Dutch somewhat. Amazing what havoc a stupid sailorman in a ship's magazine can cause.
Last edited:
It's possible, though I doubt Charles II would be willing to do what's necessary to make it work. In the Commonwealth the Navy not only had lots of money spent on it, but mostly positions were given out based on ability, not titles, and there was a huge ship-building culture.
Under Charles II pretty much all these were reversed. He allowed most of the navy to go to rot and, when it came to the Second Anglo-Dutch War, he didn't put the money or effort required into rebuilding the navy. On top of that under Charles II, as was prelevant in most monarchies of the time, he appointed positions to friends and other men with titles and, much like Charles I learnt with the Duke of Buckingham, learnt the consequences of doing so.
So yes, it's entirely plausible to win the war, or at least force a vague stalemate like the First Anglo-Dutch War, but Charles II would have to utterly revamp his whole idea of the navy.
Under Charles II pretty much all these were reversed. He allowed most of the navy to go to rot and, when it came to the Second Anglo-Dutch War, he didn't put the money or effort required into rebuilding the navy. On top of that under Charles II, as was prelevant in most monarchies of the time, he appointed positions to friends and other men with titles and, much like Charles I learnt with the Duke of Buckingham, learnt the consequences of doing so.
So yes, it's entirely plausible to win the war, or at least force a vague stalemate like the First Anglo-Dutch War, but Charles II would have to utterly revamp his whole idea of the navy.
OK I'm gonna dispute some of this here. First off, Charles II was very supportive of the Navy. Many new ships were launched, administration was improved and the leadership wasn't to bad. The main problem was money. Its not like Charles II spent huge amounts of money on himself and his court while neglecting the military and Government. That is a myth. The truth is Parliament never voted enough money to properly support the Government, Court and Military.
Second, the navy did not rot under Charles II. According to Wikipedia (not the best source I know) the Parliamentary Navy numbered 40 ships at the time of the Restoration. By the time of the 2nd Dutch war, the number was 140. So obviously Charles II didn't neglect the Navy.
Now I'm not gonna dispute that some appointees were bad (Monck certainly was a bad choice) but not all Political appointees were bad. Both James Duke of York and Prince Rupert were excellent in their leadership of the Fleet. So I think you're severely underestimating Charles II and his Navy.
Compared to what was needed, Charles II didn't do enough. In the First Anglo-Dutch War the Commonwealth Navy comprised about 300 ships and vast amounts of money were spent on it.
The issue over why money wasn't spent on it is a difficult one, and comes down to whether Charles II was willing to accept more Parliamentary involvement in state affairs. He didn't want, or need, them to and as such did what Charles I did, he annoyed them. So when it came to war, Parliament was as unwilling to stump up the necessary money as they had been during the French and Spanish expeditions and the Bishop's Wars. Both sides are to blame though.
I think you're overestimating him and his fleet. On the other hand though the war did begin relatively well, though arguably that was because the Dutch were mid-revamping of their own navy, and as such were unprepared, something they rapidly changed, unlike the English.
As far as I understand, in the First Anglo-Dutch War English fleet was inferior to Dutch in quality of crews, but got numerical superiority. And quality of admirals - young generation of Dutch admirals had yet to become prominent, and English had Robert Blake, naval genius extraordinary (Monck is but a humble apprentice of his).
Second Anglo-Dutch War was "Monck and Princes (York and Cumberland) vs De Ruyter at the height of his career". So in fact despite Dutch problems (7 (seven) independent admiralties, one for each province, for example) England has far more. Though you might make the loss not so humilating - adding a victory or two on English side (the most direct result of Charles II having healthy male heir is that James of York never gets recalled from front lines and probably gets appointed instead of Monck) but the win is next to impossible.
The true naval genius on De Ruyter level (Blake) was dead by then. Monck sucked. This guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ayscue - 'nuff said. Rupert Cumberland (with all due respect of a rabid fangirl from me) was inferior to Blake by whom he was trashed.
You may also toy with public opinion - James was relatively popular in England before he converted to Catholicism. Having him as a casualty of Lowestoft (in OTL he nearly got killed) will provoke MASSIVE public outrage against the Dutch and will probably create a push enough to vote fleet renovation in the Parliament.
Second Anglo-Dutch War was "Monck and Princes (York and Cumberland) vs De Ruyter at the height of his career". So in fact despite Dutch problems (7 (seven) independent admiralties, one for each province, for example) England has far more. Though you might make the loss not so humilating - adding a victory or two on English side (the most direct result of Charles II having healthy male heir is that James of York never gets recalled from front lines and probably gets appointed instead of Monck) but the win is next to impossible.
The true naval genius on De Ruyter level (Blake) was dead by then. Monck sucked. This guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ayscue - 'nuff said. Rupert Cumberland (with all due respect of a rabid fangirl from me) was inferior to Blake by whom he was trashed.
You may also toy with public opinion - James was relatively popular in England before he converted to Catholicism. Having him as a casualty of Lowestoft (in OTL he nearly got killed) will provoke MASSIVE public outrage against the Dutch and will probably create a push enough to vote fleet renovation in the Parliament.
Five actually. The (3) land provinces had no admiralty.
There was one for Zealand, three for Holland and one for Friesland and Groningen combined.
The Commonwealth navy may have been very effective at the height of it's power, but by 1660 those days were long gone, and the navy had fallen far .
Tedder's Restoration Navy gives details of the state of the fleet at the restoration. Not a pretty tale. Most ships had not been paid for many months, even years. A great number were reckoned foul, in need of repairs, unvictualled. Most were laid up. In essence, the fleet in 1660 was a ruin.
So the money initially voted by the Restoration parliament all went on just paying off the arrears.
As to commanders, it's hard to see any other names that would have been notably better than York, Rupert and Sandwich, OK, Albemarle, though a competent soldier was a disaster at sea.But York was competent and effective. Ditto Sandwich. And Rupert, at his best , was brilliant. Patchy, but at a melee battle like Lowestoft , where he could treat ships like cavalry squadrons, he was probably without peer. I don't think Charles could have found any better commanders .
Tedder's Restoration Navy gives details of the state of the fleet at the restoration. Not a pretty tale. Most ships had not been paid for many months, even years. A great number were reckoned foul, in need of repairs, unvictualled. Most were laid up. In essence, the fleet in 1660 was a ruin.
So the money initially voted by the Restoration parliament all went on just paying off the arrears.
As to commanders, it's hard to see any other names that would have been notably better than York, Rupert and Sandwich, OK, Albemarle, though a competent soldier was a disaster at sea.But York was competent and effective. Ditto Sandwich. And Rupert, at his best , was brilliant. Patchy, but at a melee battle like Lowestoft , where he could treat ships like cavalry squadrons, he was probably without peer. I don't think Charles could have found any better commanders .
So I might not get a full victory but at at the very least, a peace that is more favorable to England? Does that sound about right or no?